Police point weapons at VA Tech students.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spiff, I am glad you're not a cop. If you were and were in the situation we have been discussing, I am afraid the following is how events would play out:


BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!

Spiff: "Crap, I thought SHE was the GUY."

Other LEO: "Yeah, but you didn't have to shoot her baby!"

Spiff: "I thought it was a concealed handgun."
 
Spiff disingenuously switched from discussing whether "live weapons should be pointed at all the people who are being checked out during the search" to defending "armed response by LEO's"??
Click to expand...
Potato Potatoe
I meant the same thing, pointing of a loaded firearm at potential suspects. I am not talking about a felony stop for a broken taillight. We are talking about the search for a murderer. Go back to the original argument. The subject posited was that LEO's draw their weapons on "unarmed non hostile civilians". The opinion pined is that they do this all the time. Turns out it happened once here. The OP wants LEO's to be charged with brandishing over this.

The difference here between my position and yours is that I don't believe all LEO's are Barney Fife's.+

edit - v8bird, again, with the asinine exaggerations.
 
ME
"Once again, you can't make any decent argument for why cops shouldn't point their pistols at our heads when they make a traffic stop because we might be carrying concealed then"

SPIFF
"Is that at all what I am arguing about? Again, an asinine exaggeration."



No, you're saying that in times of stress (when you'd least want a gun pointed at you) that cops should be allowed to indiscriminately take aim at citizens. I'm asking why you don't think they should be allowed to aim at us during traffic stops. BOTH situations are dangerous to the cop, and BOTH times he doesn't know if a random citizen is armed and poses a danger to him. How if you defend one situation do you NOT defend the other?
 
"felony stop for a broken taillight."

I would be interested in seeing a felony stop for a broken taillight.


"The difference here between my position and yours is that I don't believe all LEO's are Barney Fife's."

NOBODY......NOBODY said that. I wouldn't want Jesus Christ himself pointing a loaded gun at me when I hadn't done anything wrong. It has nothing to do with competence. It has to do with human beings being prone to accidents during times of high levels of adrenaline and stress.
 
you're saying that in times of stress (when you'd least want a gun pointed at you) that cops should be allowed to indiscriminately take aim at citizens.
Click to expand...
Actually, no thats not what I am saying. It would be if I was arguing that while LEO's were searching for the suspect with guns pointed at students exiting the building, across town other LEO's were pointing their guns at people walking out of a grocery store looking for the same suspect. That would be the definition of 'indiscriminately'.
BOTH situations are dangerous to the cop, and BOTH times he doesn't know if a random citizen is armed and poses a danger to him
Click to expand...
Go back to the scenario. Were the LEO's there at random? Did they just happen to pull up to a building, and say to themselves "Hey, there MIGHT be a murderer walking out the door, lets cover the doors with our guns!" "Hey, theres someone driving towards us, lets stop the car and detain the driver and point our rifles at them, maybe thats the killer!"
No, they were there with a reason. It was NOT random. You are comparing apples to oranges.
 
The argument is not about armed response being justified, the argument is about piss poor firearms handling.:)

badbob
 
spacemanspiff said:
I am not talking about a felony stop for a broken taillight. We are talking about the search for a murderer.
Click to expand...

Makes no difference. Hundreds of criminals have attacked police at routine stops under just such a simple infraction. The rules of engagement for LEOs are the same. They don't change just because the offense is different. Innocent bystanders and civilians and non-threatening people are just that; clearly not subjects to aim weapons at for any reason. I gather you watch a great deal of television. Recommend you stop, as there is a clear difference between fantasy and reality. LEOs do not do the AIM WEAPONS AT CIVILIANS routine, unless they are idiotic ATF agents or rookie police on a first live fire exercise. Too much risk in aiming weapons where they don't belong. And besides, there are some folks in this nation that would perceive a rookie cop aiming a weapon at them as a clear threat against their life, and they would respond accordingly... I know I would.

btw... I was serious in the suggestion of the NRA Firearm Handling Course...
 
How will you know its a rookie cop? How will you know your training surpasses his? Why are you willing to escalate a situation like that? Can you draw and fire faster than he can pull his trigger? Are you convinced that other LEO's on the scene will take your side? Or will they respond by drawing and firing at you? What point will you prove by drawing down on a LEO?
 
spacemanspiff said:
Go back to the original argument. The subject posited was that LEO's draw their weapons on "unarmed non hostile civilians". The opinion pined is that they do this all the time.
Click to expand...


That's a lie. This discussion is, and has been, about THIS SITUATION, and the question was ASKED, whether it is supposed to be all right for cops to do this in general. Here is the text of the original post, with my bold in the germane areas:

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?
Click to expand...


CLEARLY, v8fbird did NOT engage in cop-bashing. He expressed consternation, possibly, and surprise that more people don't seem to be bothered by the cops' actions in this situation. He did not say, "Oh, these scumbag cops are doing this all over the place time and again, and I wish they were all thrown in jail, 'cause everyone knows all cops are crooked reckless scum!" No, he asked questions, and you are ascribing all sorts of stuff to him that he didn't say.


So, where did v8fbird opine "that they do this all the time"? :mad:


-azurefly
 
I think Spiff’s point is that in this situation the cops were at VA Tech searching for a murderer with the following supposition in mind (these are my guesses as to what was influencing the cops, but I suspect they’re similar to what Spiff’s assuming): The murderer is armed and is believed to be hiding inside the school facilities, amongst the other students. Ergo, anybody walking out of the school could be the badguy armed and ready to shoot it out and probably more than willing to take out some students as well. Therefore the cops covered the exits and consequently the exiting students preparing for the distinctly possible chance that one of the individuals running out the door is the badguy. I’m sure all of y’all have a much higher skill level than those cops and so would be more than capable of ensuring none of the students running out the door with a possible active shooter in their midst would be killed by him had you been present and able to stand there with your rifle at a low ready. :rolleyes:

Blacksburg and it’s sister town of Christiansburg are small towns. Chances are good every single cop present for this situation knew at least one person that worked or went to school there. I’ll guarantee that at the bare minimum they interact with faculty and students on a very regular basis. They weren’t playing JBT. They were trying to do their dead level best to keep every single innocent alive and to a safe location so they could then go track down the killer. There isn’t a really easy or 100% tactically sound way to do that. They made the best choice they could. Their choice wasn’t drastically out of line with what the situation called for; cover the exit point.
 
"How will you know its a rookie cop? How will you know your training surpasses his? Why are you willing to escalate a situation like that? Can you draw and fire faster than he can pull his trigger? Are you convinced that other LEO's on the scene will take your side? Or will they respond by drawing and firing at you? What point will you prove by drawing down on a LEO?"

ONCE AGAIN, you're just making crap up. He didn't say DRAW DOWN on them. He said RESPOND ACCORDINGLY. Only an idiot is going to draw at someone who already has them in their sights.

I would probably respond verbally. I would say "What in the [insert something] do you think you are doing? You're aiming a gun at me!" I'd be as loud as I could and get as many people NOTICING what was going on as possible, including other LEO's and fellow citizens. I'd tell him to back off.

After everything was over I would try to get charges pressed against him, I would sue him and I would sue his department. I'd do anything but act aggressively.
 
Morva had been jailed on charges of attempting to rob a store last year..

..he overpowered a Montgomery County sheriff's deputy at the hospital, took the deputy's gun and fatally shot Derrick McFarland, 26, an unarmed hospital security guard. The deputy suffered a concussion and other severe head injuries but was reported in stable condition Monday.

Hundreds of police searched the 2,600-acre campus for Morva, including Cpl. Eric E. Sutphin, who was shot to death on a off-campus trail Monday morning.

Sutphin, a 13-year veteran, had been honored for his role in a 2003 incident in which he was wounded but still helped corner and kill the suspect in another fatal police shooting.

Police feared [morva] would blend in with the students, saying he had shed his orange prison jumpsuit and was wearing a tie-dyed shirt and khakis.

******************

I didn't see the pictures referred to in the initial post, so do not know the extent of the 'infraction', but my 1st impression is screw it - number 1 rule for me was "I will go home at the end of my shift". If my weapon covers your preciousness while I am VERY actively (i.e he IS HERE some where!) searching for a known armed murderer and cop killer, who may very likely be hiding amongst whoever really is non-hostile while exiting a building, or may be hiding in your car as it drives up, so be it.

Doesn't SWAT react to hostage situations similiar to this, as people come out of the building they don't know who is who? SO everyone is covered and out down and handcuffed, etc?


Are there any links to the actual pictures?
 
How will you know its a rookie cop?
Click to expand...

Age, body language, eyes.

Not 100% effective but 90 to 95% accurate. Body language is easy to read if you know what to look for. Suggest a body language book to read.

(You could use the same info for pickin up chicks!):D
 
"number 1 rule for me was "I will go home at the end of my shift"."

I'll go ahead and posit that, if your #1 concern was for YOUR safety and not that of CITIZENS including women and little boys and girls, and that you wanted to secure your safety by taking aim at them, then we most assuredly do not want you working for us.
 
I would probably respond verbally. I would say "What in the [insert something] do you think you are doing? You're aiming a gun at me!" I'd be as loud as I could and get as many people NOTICING what was going on as possible, including other LEO's and fellow citizens. I'd tell him to back off.
Click to expand...
And he will listen to your verbal response, why? I don't see how anything a person being held at gunpoint by a LEO might say would de-escalate the situation. Compliance is the only way, in my opinion.
 

Quote:
I would probably respond verbally. I would say "What in the [insert something] do you think you are doing? You're aiming a gun at me!" I'd be as loud as I could and get as many people NOTICING what was going on as possible, including other LEO's and fellow citizens. I'd tell him to back off.


And he will listen to your verbal response, why? I don't see how anything a person being held at gunpoint by a LEO might say would de-escalate the situation. Compliance is the only way, in my opinion.


You're failing to read what I'm writing. My intention is not to get him to back off or to descalate the situation. My intent is to "get as many people NOTICING what was going on as possible"

I'd be trying to get witnesses, and to establish a visual record for them.
 
O yes there is.

The context here is safety. In a sceanrio where there are armed dangerous suspects mixing in a crowd, some degree of tactical advantage must go to the officers.

Id rather have a cop point a gun at me vis a vis some BG gets the drop on him and shoots me too
Click to expand...

If the cop has his weapon pointed at you, then he probably will not see the BG as he will focused on you, his weapon, his sights, etc. So, that argument actually contradicts the position for which it is asserted in support of. Aiming in as part of the "search process" actually reduces the officer's ability to perceive the overall situation, while increasing the chances that the wrong person will be shot . .. as they have been.

Louis Awerbuck teaches in across the country regularly. I'd suggest everyone who believes that aiming at the crowd will somehow make your responses to a particular threat quicker take a course from him. He kills this belief rather handily.
 
If you are going to start restricting the police to not being able to draw and point their weapon until they are 100% sure they have the right person then good luck finding someone that wants to become an officer. I respect the job they do and wouldn't want their job for twice what they make. I have known a few officers and and don't think they would point their gun and somebody just for the fun of it. When you are dealing with a murderer and cop killer you are dealing with one of the lowest forms of human life and you need to be ready. I also had a police officer point a shotgun at me when I was a teenager. The situation wasn't what he thought it was and we weren't doing anything wrong, but he didn't know that at the time. It was scarry at the time but after it was over I didn't have a problem with his actions.
Rusty
 
"number 1 rule for me was "I will go home at the end of my shift"."

I'll go ahead and posit that, if your #1 concern was for YOUR safety and not that of CITIZENS including women and little boys and girls [at whom you will be pointing your firearm to ensure your own safety,] and that you wanted to secure your safety by taking aim at them, then we most assuredly do not want you working for us.
Click to expand...


I'll second that. If one's concern for oneself negates the concern that the job requires that one have for the public, then one does not belong in law enforcement.

There are lots of safer jobs out there. Pick one.


-azurefly
 
Louis Awerbuck teaches in across the country regularly.
Click to expand...

With all due respect to Mr Awerbuck, his opinion on tacticality is one of many I'm sure...as each department has its own training methods and SOP.

I think the dichotomy here is between those who view cops as Officer Friendly and those who view cops as Mr. JBT. Based on my life experience with cops, I'm in the Officer Freindly crowd.

Guess it all depands on your personal weltanshuung.

WildmondaymorningquaterbackiniseasyrunnintheoffenseishardAlaska
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top