Police point weapons at VA Tech students.

Status
Not open for further replies.
"Second, yes, they can."

Ok, I am quite obviously AWARE that it happens. I wanted to know if there was a special law on the books that protects this activity, such as one that says "a LEO may point his weapon at citizens if the cop is having a bad day." I was also asking what people thought about the students having standing to sue the cops and the department for mental anguish, fearing for one's life, etc. In short, I was looking for something more than "ya"
 
Lets go back to the original post here, and get back into the meat of this issue. Perhaps then you will see my logic:

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?
Click to expand...
The context of the above quote was in regards to police searching for a murderer. They were apparently covering students exiting a building with their guns. Did the police have telepathic knowledge that the students exiting were unarmed? does the simple fact that they had their hands held up prove that they were innocent? How can the statement be made that 'they KNOW they are not the people they are looking for?'


If I had the time, I'd do a cross search of some of you posters to this thread, to see where you all would stand on your use of deadly force. I'm sure that some of you would be a bit more trigger-happy than the cop that is out there doing his job. If you have a problem with how LEO's do their job, take it up with their supervisors. Instead, you come here and posture about how 'upset' you would be if a cop pointed his gun at you. Maybe you should get "Certified Good Guy" tattooed to your forehead so police will know they never have to point their guns at you.
 
"a LEO may point his weapon at citizens if the cop is having a bad day."
Click to expand...
Can you prove that this has happened? Do you have evidence that cops are running around sticking guns in faces just for jollies or to relieve stress? If not, then your question is pointless.

edit - Perhaps you are projecting? Do YOU point guns in peoples faces when you have a bad day? Do YOU want to? Why do you assume a LEO has less self control than you do?
 
There is really no point to arguing with you, spaceman. You believe that cops should run around like stormtroopers with high powered rifles pointing them at babies. And you would trust the safety of your children to people who would point weapons at them. You can't argue with that.

Both sides of the argument have been laid out.

I want cops to be required to exercise restraint with their weapons even in times of great stress and even though they are possibly in danger. They have a dangerous job, but that is not an excuse to violate people.

On the other hand, you would have us all looking down the barrel of a rifle.

Everyone else can figure out where they stand all by themselves.
 
Civil Law

V8, you can sue anyone for anything in this country. That is civil law, so if the students want to cry mental anguish that is thier right. Problem would be finding a liberal bleeding heart jury in VA that would agree.:D

As far as the books on the pointing of an officers weapon............ I am at a loss. But I believe I read that the suspect was spotted on or near the campus. That unfortunately counts as a imminent threat. Because he was an escaped felon and suspected cop killer, that puts the whole community in danger. Special circumstances for a bit more "show of force" by the police, for some reason alot of police officers take it personally when you gun down one of thier own. :eek: I know we did.

as far as
"a LEO may point his weapon at citizens if the cop is having a bad day."
Click to expand...
i understand sarcasm but come on. As for the cops being negligent with the pointing of thier weapons ...perhaps. But criminally negligent... no they would had to have caused seriously bodily injury or death for criminal negligence to apply.
 
Local stuff the last few days.
Updated Wednesday, August 23 at 7:22 AM

Firing of officer who pulled gun at softball game upheld
by The Associated Press

JEFFERSON - A former police officer who pulled his gun at a recreation league softball game in May won't return to duty with the city police department.

Jefferson City Manager David Clabo said Monday he upheld the firing of Dexter Sims, who continues to fight the firing and says he filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about two weeks ago.

Sims said he escorted a spectator and a coach from the field May 5 when they began arguing with an umpire after a disputed call during a girls' softball game.

Sims was watching his 12-year-old daughter play at the time.

Sims said the men drove toward him, prompting him to draw his handgun. Sims said he did not attempt to shoot the gun and would not have been able to fire because the clip fell out of it.

Clabo said he reviewed witness statements and the police department's investigation of the incident, but did not find reason to overturn Sims' firing.

Sims was fired from the city police department for insubordination. But he claims city officials wanted to fire him after he objected to an incident involving a pair of Jefferson High School students Sims says received preferential treatment.

The students, according to Sims, were caught selling OxyContin pills at the school but weren't arrested.

Sims said he may sue the city if he isn't satisfied with the outcome of the EEOC complaint.
 
You believe that cops should run around like stormtroopers with high powered rifles pointing them at babies. And you would trust the safety of your children to people who would point weapons at them.
Click to expand...
Psshawwwwwwww! If I don't have at LEAST 12 guns shoved in my face from cops having bad days, my day aint complete! :rolleyes:

If you can't formulate a valid point, you really shouldn't use exaggeration to try to drive your point home. Again, do you have proof that LEO's are violating people, or threatening them on whims? Has it happened to you? Or maybe a relative? Or a friend? Or a friends cousins neighbors babysitters babys mommas great-aunty?
 
spiff -- don't bother. His default debating tactics are the strawman as he's used multiple times in this thread alone, and insulting comments such as this:

v8fbird said:
Trip,

Let's say you had a daughter (God forbid, based on your comments).
Click to expand...

I remember when I was perfect, idealistic, and right all the time. Then I turned into a grown up and everything went to hell.

Anyway here ya go, v8fbird. Here's TFL rule #3:

3) No spamming, trolling, flaming or other personal attacks, be they acrimonious or veiled in humor.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine.

Now, please make an effort to stop the grade school insults and argue your point, and only your point. Think your up to it?
 
There really is two sides to this issue and both sides are guilty of extreme thinking, allowing no room for a middle ground.

Of course LEO's point guns at people in the course of their job. Of course it's sometimes innocent people. This is reasonable enough considering the state of affairs nowadays and the exigency of the particular situation. But to paint the police with a broad rightious brush, disallowing consideration for inadequete training, bad apples and such is going too far.

OTOH, painting all police with a broad brush of they're all scum and should be hung for mistakes, overstepping bounds, and the like is equally incorrect.

Spiff, you want examples? How about the 'JBT's are at it again' thread. Totally out of line and the individual officers should be held accountable. Or how about this attitude:


Sims was fired from the city police department for insubordination. But he claims city officials wanted to fire him after he objected to an incident involving a pair of Jefferson High School students Sims says received preferential treatment.
Click to expand...

Citizens should receive preferential treatment. Police regularly receive preferential treatment and citizens thrown to the wolves for similar infractions. That's not right. Maybe v8FB is coming off as possibly a little extreme, but paint him as a copbasher for having questions? C'mon. There's a middle ground here and idealistically, the citizens should not come off on the short end of it.

Questions= copbasher. Soon copbasher will = terrorist. Nah, I don't buy it. That type of attitude encourages the us vs them feelings that v8 is displaying. There's bad apples, and citizens with questions. What the heck's wrong with that?
 
I think that cop "Sims" should have been fired for incompetence! He drew his gun (for what purpose, we don't know) and the "clip (sic) fell out"?! Pfft! :barf: What a loser.


Now, I side with v8fbird on this issue. I was concerned by an image of a cop with a black rifle pointed into a car (related to this search) myself.

The mere fact that a dangerous felon is on the loose should not be deemed to constitute cause to aim rifles at everyone. There is nothing wrong with being in a ready position; I have to assume that cops are trained to do that and also to quickly get a sight alignment if/when the subject acts aggressively or dangerously.

Juancarlos, I have to say that while you often state articulate points that I agree with, I do feel it was you who was off the mark, particularly when you alleged "strawmanning". v8fbird wasn't doing that. It's perfectly valid for him to say what he said about cops aiming at subjects of traffic stops. It is well known that they are among the most dangerous activities cops perform, and lots of cop shootings are from when they stop a bad guy in a car. It would make far more sense for aiming at the driver/occupants at traffic stops than it does to aim at random college students.

The fact is, we can all agree that aiming at whoever you encounter when you serve a dynamic warrant on a known meth lab is justified -- and that scenario is a world apart from looking for ONE guy among THOUSANDS of people. That's THOUSANDS of chances for a negligent or accidental discharge aimed at an innocent who is not justly suspected of anything!


-azurefly
 
Heres my problem. Its been my personal experience that the person who laughs with joy when the bad guy gets it will seem to think that they have a protective shield around them from ever being mistaken by a LEO for being a bad guy. They rant and rave whenever they get pulled over and get asked to hand over their concealed firearm because they think they should get that special treatment.

In a way, its also similar to 22 yr old kids that get upset at getting carded at bars or liquor stores. Somehow they can't comprehend that they don't look like they are of age. And the armed citizen thinks they should never be held or detained because 'they know their rights'.

Common sense should prevail here. LEO's draw their weapons (not just firearms, OC, batons, etc) far more often than us civilians do. They are in a high risk line of work, and we want them to respond with the proper amount of force. When people are calling them JBT's or stormtroopers it gets absurd. Maybe there are JBTs and stormtroopers where other people live, but where i come from, misidentifications by police are rare.

In all fairness, the questions posed by the original poster to this thread were not 'simple' questions. They had an agenda, and that agenda is to label LEO's as being below the level that the OP is at. If someone could provide me with evidence that LEO's are drawing down excessively and unnecessarily, and that they should be charged with 'brandishing', great. Until then, its all immaterial.
 
If someone could provide me with evidence that LEO's are drawing down excessively and unnecessarily, and that they should be charged with 'brandishing', great.
Click to expand...


Uhh, that would be this case. :rolleyes:


-azurefly
 
Sorry azure, but the hunt for an armed murderer does necessitate the use of deadly force. We have one case where some have the opinion that cops should be more passive. That is not proof that LEO's are drawing down excessively and unnecessarily.
 
I was right on the verge of closing this thread down. But...

It is a thread asking valid questions. There have been some valid responses in the last few minutes, which takes some of the edge off the ad hominem attacks that preceeded the explanations.

I would hope that all further responses are in line with the last few. Else the thread will be closed for lack of civility. State your case, make your rebuttals, but do so in a manner fitting of an adult and not some petulant child.
 
spiff said:
Sorry azure, but the hunt for an armed murderer does necessitate the use of deadly force. We have one case where some have the opinion that cops should be more passive. That is not proof that LEO's are drawing down excessively and unnecessarily.
Click to expand...

This case is all we are talking about. We don't have to find scads of other cases where "LEO's are drawing down excessively and unnecessarily" in order to discuss whether or not they did in THIS case. That's the point of what I said there. It's my belief that they DID draw down excessively, unnecessarily, egregiously, dangerously, insultingly, offensively, ad nauseum, in this case. The pointing of guns at college students at the scene of a lockdown is NOT justified just because of the nature of who they're hunting.


Anyway, where did I say "passive"? I remember saying something about using the "ready position" and being, well, ready to aim and fire if a subject ends up getting violent (and/or exposing himself as the target of the manhunt).

The hunt for an armed murderer in no way "necessitates" the need to point guns at the person of several dozen, hundred, or thousand individuals "just so that the cops can go home at night."

I'll bet that if this type of police action were directed at the wife, daughter, son, girlfriend, etc. of any member here, they would be outraged by the attempts to justify such recklessness and heavyhandedness in the name of bringing in a suspect, copkiller or not.


-azurefly
 
EDIT: Scratch that...just saw Antipitas' post and thought my reply might be borderline. This thread might have good places to go, so I'll err on the side of caution.
 
How long would a civilian last if they pointed a gun at a cop? Why should a cop be any different?
Click to expand...

Because the rules are different for nonLEOs and LEOs. Deadly force is only allowed for nonLEOs when that force is necessary to meet an equivalent threat. We can only use proportional force.

LEOs, by contrast, are allowed to use disproportionate force. They can escalate their force levels as necessary to fulfill their duties. Firearms are one mechanism for doing that, as a method of using the threat of extreme force to deter the actual need to apply said force.

This is, of course, a rather sad situation. At one time, a cop was likely to retire without ever drawing his weapon in anything but an administrative/training context. Now, a cop will probably do so on a regular basis. And yes, there are tragic results. The FBI agent who shot an innocent person in the face during the search is a prime example.

What people, including cops, needs to understand is that even if a weapon must be drawn, it does NOT have to be aimed at a particular target. Simply keeping it at the low ready, aimed to the side, etc. has been demonstrated to have no real effect on response time, yet has considerable benefits in avoiding the FBI bad shoot mentioned above, the SWAT shooting in VA (when the officer negligently killed the bookie suspect) andsimilar situations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top