Police point weapons at VA Tech students.

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

v8fbird

Moderator
This relates to the murderer loose in and around Blacksburg, VA and the VA Tech campus.

I saw an article in the Post showing a picture of a Blacksburg police officer pointing his AR15 at what looks like a couple girls in a VW. The news that night showed more officers taking aim at ALL the students who were coming out of a school building with their arms raised. But I also saw some officers searching cars with their guns at the ready, so I don't know which method is the department's policy.

My question is to the legality of this. Do LEO's, JUST BECAUSE they are police, get to AIM their loaded weapons at civilians whom they KNOW are not the people they are looking for? Shouldn't these officers be charged with brandishing their firearms, just like anyone else?

I don't know why people don't mind this, especially since a hundred miles away in northern VA, a swat member accidentally shot an unarmed man because he was approaching him gun aimed and stepped into a hole. I would be FURIOUS if ANYONE pointed their gun at me, no matter who it was.

Again, my question is:

Could a person who was driving their car through a police checkpoint and who had an AR15 stuck in their face press charges? Or, would there be standing to sue the Blacksburg police if it is, in fact, their policy to aim weapons at unarmed, innocent and compliant civilians who have broken no laws?
 
No....they do it when they have reasonable suspicion, or fear for their safety, etc. When you're looking for a MALE and you have a FEMALE in your sights, you probably have neither reasonable suspicion or any fear for your safety. Police don't just walk down the street pointing weapons at people because somewhere in the city of 500,000 there is one guy who robbed a waffle house.
 
Can the officer tell for a 110% fact and certainty that the individual is indeed unarmed? Can they predict without fail who will comply and who will not?
 
Do LEO's... ...get to AIM their loaded weapons at civilians?
Click to expand...

Simple answer: Yes.

I chopped up that first question because there was a lot of supposition and other extraneous commentary with in.

Shouldn't these officers be charged with brandishing their firearms, just like anyone else?
Click to expand...

No. Not while on duty. And certainly not based on the little information you've provided regarding this incident(s).

Ok, so why not weapons always drawn and pointed at whomever is closest?
Click to expand...

Ok, so why not call the Blacksburg Police Dept, and pose this silly question? It's definitely not a retort to Spiff's point, but you knew that.

You don't like - and I'll assume won't like - the reasons why on duty officers are allowed to point their weapons at civilians. You can attribute whatever knowledge you like to these officers (i.e., they "KNOW" who's running out of the building), but it doesn't change a thing, it's just an assumption of yours.

For the most part, officers do not go around pointing their weapons at people "JUST BECAUSE they are police."

I'm sure the conditions for drawing and pointing are outlined in their training, in the academy, or some such place or curriculum. And I'm sure this material does not say, "JUST BECAUSE you are officers, begin pointing your weapons at all civilians, particularly the ones closest to you."
 
Police officers aim their weapons at 'civilians' all the time. It is part of their job.
Click to expand...
I have to differ with you on this one. If an officer is going to point his or her weapon at someone there must be some type of just cause. It is done to protect the officer's life and the life of others who may be in danger. An officer would have no more right to draw and point his weapon at me for no cause as I would at him.

There are four simple rules to handling firearms:

RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

Unless an officer is certain the person is a threat they are clearly violating rules II and IV by aiming at a citizen. No officer can say they do not know of these rules. Violating them is at the minimum reckless endangerment of the person aimed at. Of course nothing will be done unless a citizen is wrongfully shot and makes a case out of it rather than settling. We have all seen footage of LEO NDs so it can happen. The ND is bad enough, but an ND while the gun is pointed at someone is far far worse.

Does this mean that officers should have to hold their weapons OFF the suspect as long as they are not certain of a threat? In my opinion, based on what I consider logical thought, it certainly does. The officer's need to feel safe though should not override the innocent citizen's need not to be recklessly endangerred.
 
Ok, so why not weapons always drawn and pointed at whomever is closest?
Click to expand...

False dichotomy. There are miles of middle ground between "only point weapons and positively identified armed suspects" and "point them at everybody at all times."

As far as the four rules go, I've found that in my experience they do not always strictly apply when it comes to the military, and I imagine law enforcement is similar. Rule 2 especially becomes fuzzy, especially considering that which you are willing to destroy and that which you wish to destroy are often separate but overlapping groups.

As far as pointing a weapon at somebody whom you are sure is not your suspect goes, just because you know for a fact they are not who you are looking for (wrong color/gender) does not mean they are not armed and would not do you harm.

Sure, restraint must be used...but I cannot tell from the limited description of events whether in this instance their brandishing of firearms was excessive.
 
Trip,

Let's say you had a daughter (God forbid, based on your comments). Let's say she went to VA Tech. Let's say she was driving around at the time that the police were chasing the murderer. Let's say the police stopped her at one of their checkpoints. Let's say an officer approached her car with an AR15 pointed at her forehead. Let's say the officer, completely accidentally and unintentionally, lost his balance, the gun went off, and your daughter was shot and killed.

Would you want the officer prosecuted, even though he didn't intend to shoot her? Would you want the department sued? Would you want to make absolutely, positively sure that no cop ever pointed his weapon at any unarmed, nonviolent and innocent citizen every again?

Or would your daughter's death simply be the cost of doing business? Would it be acceptable in your eyes for the police to accidentally shoot one of us while they "protect" us from the murderer who wants to shoot a few of us? What, would you say, would be the difference?
 
"As far as pointing a weapon at somebody whom you are sure is not your suspect goes, just because you know for a fact they are not who you are looking for (wrong color/gender) does not mean they are not armed and would not do you harm."


Basically, you are saying if the cops are looking for a criminal, then they should be allowed to point weapons at EVERYONE simply because ANYONE could have a gun in their car and maybe somebody doesn't like cops and there is a one in a million chance that in investigating one crime they could be the victim of another crime? Why not have then pull their gun at EVERY traffic stop since they can't be sure they are safe? How about having cops aim their guns at witnesses to crimes, since you can't be sure the witness isn't dangerous in an entirely different way? A pregnant woman could have a bomb strapped to her stomach, so we should naturally point weapons at all pregnant women.
 
Basically, you are saying if the cops are looking for a criminal, then they should be allowed to point weapons at EVERYONE simply because ANYONE could have a gun in their car and maybe somebody doesn't like cops and there is a one in a million chance that in investigating one crime they could be the victim of another crime?
Click to expand...

I suppose I am. Not saying they should but considering the danger that comes from being a police officer I think that they should be allowed to exercise some degree of judgement and decide when and if such an approach is necessary. Perhaps with some oversight. That oversight may even have to be from a civilian body, since cops don't tend to second-guess cops.

Why not have then pull their gun at EVERY traffic stop since they can't be sure they are safe? How about having cops aim their guns at witnesses to crimes, since you can't be sure the witness isn't dangerous in an entirely different way? A pregnant woman could have a bomb strapped to her stomach, so we should naturally point weapons at all pregnant women.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy and strawmanning in there.
 
"False dichotomy and strawmanning in there."

Sidestepping of valid criticism of your argument.

You're saying anytime the law is broken and police have to do something official, they should be allowed to consider EVERYONE a threat and point their weapons at ANYONE. I was carrying your argument to its logical, ridiculous conclusion.
 
Sidestepping of valid criticism of your argument.
Click to expand...

No, by pointing out your logical fallacies, I'm showing your criticism to be invalid, not sidestepping.

Gotta head to work now, I'll be back later to see where this goes.
 
"positively sure that no cop ever pointed his weapon at any unarmed, nonviolent and innocent citizen every again?"

My question is, they were searching for a man who already killed one cop, injured another, and the security guard at the hospital i do not recall if he was killed or just wounded. Anyways, this individual has already shown a willingness to shoot and kill. If in your scenario the BG had taken your daughter hostage and was forcing her to drive, how is the officer that trips falls and shoots supposed to know that before hand? He doesnt, so he must be ready at all times during such situations. That crazy guy could have been anywhere is my point.

" saw an article in the Post showing a picture of a Blacksburg police officer pointing his AR15 at what looks like a couple girls in a VW"

Should the cops be pointing thier guns at people they "know" arent the suspects, no. should they be ready in case he pops up out of the crowd and starts killing random people , yes. Angles in line of sight of photography can make things appear that are not really true. They may have been pointing at the girls they may not of. But we must remember this guy was not running from unpaid parking tickets, he was an escaped Robbery suspect and he added cop killer while escaping. not exactly a member of the up- right citizens brigade;)
 
How long would it take someone to move a firearm from a SAFE direction to the target, if called for? Not long I think.:( Bad firearms training and a total lack of common sense!

badbob
 
Basically, you are saying if the cops are looking for a criminal, then they should be allowed to point weapons at EVERYONE simply because ANYONE could have a gun in their car and maybe somebody doesn't like cops and there is a one in a million chance that in investigating one crime they could be the victim of another crime? Why not have then pull their gun at EVERY traffic stop since they can't be sure they are safe? How about having cops aim their guns at witnesses to crimes, since you can't be sure the witness isn't dangerous in an entirely different way? A pregnant woman could have a bomb strapped to her stomach, so we should naturally point weapons at all pregnant women.
Click to expand...
All right, tell you what. It sounds like you want to draw down on cops who point their guns at you. You do that, and get back to us with the results. Seriously, if you cannot comprehend that the job of a law enforcement officer involves using deadly force, or the threat of, you need to buy yourself a clue.

edit - I wondered where all the cop bashers went...now they are coming out of the woodwork.
 
spacemanspiff said:
It sounds like you want to draw down on cops who point their guns at you. You do that, and get back to us with the results. Seriously, if you cannot comprehend that the job of a law enforcement officer involves using deadly force, or the threat of, you need to buy yourself a clue.
Click to expand...

No cop bashing spaceman... just common sense!

Rule #1 of Gun Handling: Don't point a weapon at anything you do not want to kill. That holds true for civilians and law enforcement. I meant what I said in previous post; any LEO pointing a weapon at non-hostile target (civilian) should be fired on the spot for gross negligence and is indeed a untrained rookie! I personally could care less what "job" you think law enforcement officers might have or which clue you think you understand... guns are guns, in civilian hands and in police hands.

How long would a civilian last if they pointed a gun at a cop? Why should a cop be any different?
 
"Do LEO's, JUST BECAUSE they are police, get to AIM their loaded weapons at civilians "

First, they ARE civilians - civil police. They are not military and subject to military law.

Second, yes, they can. They did it 35 years ago when I was a student there (VPI, aka VA TECH) and the campus was occupied by local and state police for a few days because of a few, uh, disturbances. Buildings burned, buildings taken over, etc.

John
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top