Police point weapons at VA Tech students.
- Thread starter v8fbird
- Start date
- Status
"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""
No. There is no special law. No special law is needed. Anybody can sue anybody. Happens all the time. The students won't win...because the police can point their weapons where they need to point them.
On the subject of RULE #1 - Well, it's Cooper's Rule #2, but anyway...
"RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY"
I'd say they were ready and willing to shoot the first person in the crowd that they saw with a gun. Seems reasonable.
John
No. There is no special law. No special law is needed. Anybody can sue anybody. Happens all the time. The students won't win...because the police can point their weapons where they need to point them.
On the subject of RULE #1 - Well, it's Cooper's Rule #2, but anyway...
"RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY"
I'd say they were ready and willing to shoot the first person in the crowd that they saw with a gun. Seems reasonable.
John
makarova30
Inactive
Thats the question
Do LEOs have official immunity to commit aggravated menacing during the performance of their duties even without an articulable reason to suspect a person has or is about to commit a violent act? Not one leo response here has actually responded to that. Nor have they addressed the question of why low ready is preferable to point blank. I believe you can file a criminal as well as a civil complaint against an leo. Usually the district prosecutor will drop the criminal complaint but he has no say on the civil one. Trust me, I would file every charge possible after finding an out of town attorney who doesn't have to worry about seeing that judge again. Local attorneys are hamstrung that way in my experience.
Do LEOs have official immunity to commit aggravated menacing during the performance of their duties even without an articulable reason to suspect a person has or is about to commit a violent act? Not one leo response here has actually responded to that. Nor have they addressed the question of why low ready is preferable to point blank. I believe you can file a criminal as well as a civil complaint against an leo. Usually the district prosecutor will drop the criminal complaint but he has no say on the civil one. Trust me, I would file every charge possible after finding an out of town attorney who doesn't have to worry about seeing that judge again. Local attorneys are hamstrung that way in my experience.
"Nor have they addressed the question of why low ready is preferable to point blank."
Because you don't have to lift the weapon to get on target when the murderer with the gun pops up firing out of the crowd? Seems pretty obvious.
"Trust me, I would file every charge possible "
I believe you. Have at it.
John
VPI Class of '72
Because you don't have to lift the weapon to get on target when the murderer with the gun pops up firing out of the crowd? Seems pretty obvious.
"Trust me, I would file every charge possible "
I believe you. Have at it.
John
VPI Class of '72
BLACKSBURG, VA., August 25, 2006 -- Hokies United, an alliance of Virginia Tech student organizations that previously banded together to assist those in need, ranging from earthquake and tidal wave victims in Indonesia to survivors of Hurricane Katrina, is now launching an effort to honor local law enforcement and assist the families of two individuals who represent the highest tradition of the phrase "to protect and serve."
See, kids? It's okay to point one's weapon at civilians offering no threat, as long as they're grateful for it!
...I'm going to say this again: a rifle is the wrong tool for close-in work and using the wrong tool, one that takes longer to put on target from any ready postion, may well have been a big factor in police aiming guns at citizens. That doesn't excuse it, any more than a carpenter is to be excused for driving screws with a hammer because he found it expedient.
There are a number of false choices and unjustified notions being bandied about.
1. That we must think of police as either "Officer Friendly" or "Jackbooted Thugs." Wrong! As it happens, they are human beings who have a dangerous, difficult job and wildly variable levels of training and aptitude for it. In any given situation, we have very little information about individual officers; but when I see one aiming at a crowd of students exiting a building, I do not feel especially confident about his skill level or friendliness. And he's not going to like me very well, either, because I will likely see the rifle before the uniform, and duck for cover. Some of us have been shot at before.
2. That an alert officer with a sidearm at low ready can't bring it to bear more quickly than a bad guy trying to skulk away can produce a weapon from concealment and fire.
3. That pursuing a "cop killer" somehow allows officers greater latitude than going after a plain old killer who only offed a few subjects, er, citizens. How's that? Criminal "A" does terrible, fatal things to a brother officer so therefore it is okay to aim your AR-15 at citizens B, C, D, etc.? Nooooo.
4. That in the interest of "safety" -- that of society and/or the officer -- it is acceptable to put individual citzens at risk. Really? How unAmerican to claim that an innocent individual can be sacrified to either the collective or to duly constituted authority!
5. That infringement of the rights and safety of individual citizens is all right as long as a majority of the population agree with it, even if only after the fact.
The Four Rules exist for a reason, and the reason is that we're all of us human and fallable. Yes, even The Boys and Girls in Police Uniform. Unexpectedly pointing guns at folks is not really a safe idea.
The Bill of Rights -- and limits on government power generally, both explict and implicit -- also exist for a reason. Our nation seems to be losing sight of what that reason might be. We'll learn soon enough, one way or another.
...I'm going to say this again: a rifle is the wrong tool for close-in work and using the wrong tool, one that takes longer to put on target from any ready postion, may well have been a big factor in police aiming guns at citizens. That doesn't excuse it, any more than a carpenter is to be excused for driving screws with a hammer because he found it expedient.
There are a number of false choices and unjustified notions being bandied about.
1. That we must think of police as either "Officer Friendly" or "Jackbooted Thugs." Wrong! As it happens, they are human beings who have a dangerous, difficult job and wildly variable levels of training and aptitude for it. In any given situation, we have very little information about individual officers; but when I see one aiming at a crowd of students exiting a building, I do not feel especially confident about his skill level or friendliness. And he's not going to like me very well, either, because I will likely see the rifle before the uniform, and duck for cover. Some of us have been shot at before.
2. That an alert officer with a sidearm at low ready can't bring it to bear more quickly than a bad guy trying to skulk away can produce a weapon from concealment and fire.
3. That pursuing a "cop killer" somehow allows officers greater latitude than going after a plain old killer who only offed a few subjects, er, citizens. How's that? Criminal "A" does terrible, fatal things to a brother officer so therefore it is okay to aim your AR-15 at citizens B, C, D, etc.? Nooooo.
4. That in the interest of "safety" -- that of society and/or the officer -- it is acceptable to put individual citzens at risk. Really? How unAmerican to claim that an innocent individual can be sacrified to either the collective or to duly constituted authority!
5. That infringement of the rights and safety of individual citizens is all right as long as a majority of the population agree with it, even if only after the fact.
The Four Rules exist for a reason, and the reason is that we're all of us human and fallable. Yes, even The Boys and Girls in Police Uniform. Unexpectedly pointing guns at folks is not really a safe idea.
The Bill of Rights -- and limits on government power generally, both explict and implicit -- also exist for a reason. Our nation seems to be losing sight of what that reason might be. We'll learn soon enough, one way or another.
"I'm going to say this again: a rifle is the wrong tool for close-in work and using the wrong tool, one that takes longer to put on target from any ready postion, may well have been a big factor in police aiming guns at citizens."
Yeah, well, the Tech campus is very large, so maybe a rifle is the best tool. ("Main campus includes more than 100 buildings, 2,600 acres, and an airport")
And I disagree with most of what you said.
John
Yeah, well, the Tech campus is very large, so maybe a rifle is the best tool. ("Main campus includes more than 100 buildings, 2,600 acres, and an airport")
And I disagree with most of what you said.
John
First of all, assuming the badguy is going to skulk away is how people end up getting killed. The only assumption any cop there can make is that the badguy is going to jump out and start shooting. He’s already demonstrated his willingness to do so, assuming he won’t do so again is foolhardy.
Moreover, I recall a situation my dad told me about when I was a kid. Seems a police officer found himself in a similar situation as these cops; cop had his gun pointed at and then shot, a guy holding a gun in his hand by down by his leg. This cop’s department and DA didn’t do anything to the cop, which outraged people until the department showed a training video. It showed that person A with a gun in hand by his side is able to raise the gun and shoot person B standing in front of him point a gun at him. Action always beats reaction.
makarova30
Inactive
So John
You do believe the cops have the right to violate the law, and citizens rights while endangering everyone just so they can go home at the end of their shift, never mind everybody else. Is that the way you see it?
You do believe the cops have the right to violate the law, and citizens rights while endangering everyone just so they can go home at the end of their shift, never mind everybody else. Is that the way you see it?
JohnBT: so, is a rifle the best tool for working 2' to 3' away from an automobile. as shown in the photo linked to earlier? You tell me; you're the expert. And we're not required to agree with one another. Neither one of us was there at the time and neither one of us is in the other's chain of command.
AHenry: semantics. "Badguy trying to escape," then. Feel better? And yeah, life's tough: the aggressor gets the first shot. (That's how we know he's the aggressor). Which is why a handgun would be a better choice: easier to get on target rapidly, especially at close range. Less likely to have some panicky student trying to chin him or herself of it. Now, then, who might we generally expect to be the better shot, Mr. Trained Police Officer, or J. Random Murdering Badguy? --And do try to remember, I have been shot at by badguys and I get to see my local officers shooting at the range (come to think of it, I've seen a few folks that looked a bit hood-like there, too -- lousy shots); I don't have to speculate. Getting the first shot doesn't mean much unless you can hit what you're aiming at.
The particular evildoer in question, is not the story that he shot an officer with the officer's own gun? Some fine marksmanship there, probably at between zero and two feet. Murderous aggression does not equal skill or cunning.
AHenry: semantics. "Badguy trying to escape," then. Feel better? And yeah, life's tough: the aggressor gets the first shot. (That's how we know he's the aggressor). Which is why a handgun would be a better choice: easier to get on target rapidly, especially at close range. Less likely to have some panicky student trying to chin him or herself of it. Now, then, who might we generally expect to be the better shot, Mr. Trained Police Officer, or J. Random Murdering Badguy? --And do try to remember, I have been shot at by badguys and I get to see my local officers shooting at the range (come to think of it, I've seen a few folks that looked a bit hood-like there, too -- lousy shots); I don't have to speculate. Getting the first shot doesn't mean much unless you can hit what you're aiming at.
The particular evildoer in question, is not the story that he shot an officer with the officer's own gun? Some fine marksmanship there, probably at between zero and two feet. Murderous aggression does not equal skill or cunning.
It’s really not semantics. There is a difference in how a person should be treated that is known to kill in order to escape and somebody that is believed to be non-violent and not likely to try violence in order to escape. As I said before, the only reasonable assumption a cop can make for the former type is that he is likely to run outside shooting (discriminately or indiscriminately). That being the case, as well as the fact that he is believed to be armed and inside the building, where he could have easily come up with clothing from a student, the cops have to be as prepared as possible.
Moreover, your assumption that a handgun, in this case, is superior to a long arm is debatable. To my way of thinking, if the cops believe they are about to have an active shooter in the midst of innocents, the most precise and accurate firearm available is the way to go; maximizing their chances of taking out the shooter with minimum innocent casualties. I don’t think you can argue that a long arm beats out the handgun in that category. Granted a long arm is slower to deploy than a handgun. The flip side to that coin is that if/when the cops have to use the weapon, the long arm is far more likely to be on target and stay on target than a handgun. Life is full of tradeoffs. In this case, I think the choices made by the cops are entirely reasonable. They chose long arm over handgun, which I willingly concede is a debatable choice, but one I agree with given the circumstances and could easily see myself making were I there. They chose to be on target as students were running from the building. Again, a debatable decision, but fairly reasonable given the circumstances: a shooter likely to be running out with all the other students and if so, more than likely to begin shooting indiscriminately. A rapid and precise takedown in that situation is paramount.
Moreover, your assumption that a handgun, in this case, is superior to a long arm is debatable. To my way of thinking, if the cops believe they are about to have an active shooter in the midst of innocents, the most precise and accurate firearm available is the way to go; maximizing their chances of taking out the shooter with minimum innocent casualties. I don’t think you can argue that a long arm beats out the handgun in that category. Granted a long arm is slower to deploy than a handgun. The flip side to that coin is that if/when the cops have to use the weapon, the long arm is far more likely to be on target and stay on target than a handgun. Life is full of tradeoffs. In this case, I think the choices made by the cops are entirely reasonable. They chose long arm over handgun, which I willingly concede is a debatable choice, but one I agree with given the circumstances and could easily see myself making were I there. They chose to be on target as students were running from the building. Again, a debatable decision, but fairly reasonable given the circumstances: a shooter likely to be running out with all the other students and if so, more than likely to begin shooting indiscriminately. A rapid and precise takedown in that situation is paramount.
So have others of us. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are you suggesting that somebody that hasn’t been shot at (regardless of which side they come down on in this situation) is somehow less able to decide the best tactics? Or are you perhaps suggesting, by saying so multiple times, that to have been shot at somehow makes you better than those that haven’t? Seriously, I’m asking so you have the chance to state your view. By bringing this point up on several occasions, you obviously think it makes you better able to opine, or at least more experienced than those that have not been shot at.
Which is exactly why I think aimed-in with a rifle is a reasonable choice to make. It allows the cops their best chance to be the first to shoot, their best chance to have their shots on target, and their best chance to bring the target down quickly.
...But aimed-in on what, AHenry? A problem with an "aimed-in rifle" is you're not lookin' very wide. Poor decision if you are scanning a group looking for Mr. Badguy. And it becomes an even worse decision once you move to up close-type work, which is reported to be the case.
With the understanding that criminals are, in the main, stupid, and the man in question here had demonstrated a predilection for direct violence, fairness bids me point out that when given a building full of college students and a firearm, a criminal has bettter short-term choices than coming out shooting. Hostage, anyone? At that point, a longarm might be a good choice it'll take a very good marksman to make effective use of it.
As for me mentioning having been shot at, well. Gee. One finds generally two groups on gunboards: 1. LEOs with free time 2. Gun hobbyists without direct experience of violence. I am not a member of either group.
With the understanding that criminals are, in the main, stupid, and the man in question here had demonstrated a predilection for direct violence, fairness bids me point out that when given a building full of college students and a firearm, a criminal has bettter short-term choices than coming out shooting. Hostage, anyone? At that point, a longarm might be a good choice it'll take a very good marksman to make effective use of it.
As for me mentioning having been shot at, well. Gee. One finds generally two groups on gunboards: 1. LEOs with free time 2. Gun hobbyists without direct experience of violence. I am not a member of either group.
Camp David
New member
revjen45 said:
Makes way to LEO Supervisor's door at police station.
"Excuse me Sir... I am a Virginia Tech student and several of your subordinates pointed a gun at me recently..."
"Get out of here punk!"
That's about it.
"Take it up with their supervisors?" How exactly?
Poor police training yields poor police and such catastrophes as Ruby Ridge, Waco, and general abuse of civilians. Sadly, there are a majority of good LEOs out there smeared by rookies pointing weapons at civilians and harrassing the innocent. Too much television and movie influence.
Should innocent civilians shoot back?
You KNOW the BG has a handgun, you KNOW he has killed with it, you KNOW he is lurking about somewhere on 2300 acres, and you want to bring a handgun to the fight?...something CONSTANTLY argued about because of its lack of stopping power & limited range & accuracy? AND you also want to give the KNOWN MURDERING BG the 1st shot, just because MAYBE he is not as accurate as you are? And you want to engage him with handgun fire when rifles could have been available because the pistols are easier to handle? A death wish or what???
Downplay it as much as you want, but just as much my job was NOT to needlessly or recklessly endanger innocents (which the details of are still in debate, but as presented do seem hairy), it was also NOT to get myself killed needlessly OR STUPIDLY.
Downplay it as much as you want, but just as much my job was NOT to needlessly or recklessly endanger innocents (which the details of are still in debate, but as presented do seem hairy), it was also NOT to get myself killed needlessly OR STUPIDLY.
"So John
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do believe the cops have the right to violate the law, and citizens rights while endangering everyone just so they can go home at the end of their shift, never mind everybody else. Is that the way you see it?"
________________
Are we talking generalities here, or the specific situation in Blacksburg? They did not violate any law I've ever heard of. Why are you assuming they did? Got a link to the law you claim they violated?
_______________
"JohnBT: so, is a rifle the best tool for working 2' to 3' away from an automobile. as shown in the photo linked to earlier? You tell me; you're the expert."
Expert? Me? You're the one preaching like you know what you're talking about. I still don't agree with what you're passing off as logic. Example:
"a criminal has bettter short-term choices than coming out shooting" Since he had already murdered I suggest that he had already demonstrated that he was not acting rationally and making smart choices. In fact, an argument can be made that he was completely out of control - a mad dog if you will. I don't fault the police for being prepared and a handgun is not the best choice in terms of stopping power or accuracy.
John
edited to correct some of my poor grammar
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do believe the cops have the right to violate the law, and citizens rights while endangering everyone just so they can go home at the end of their shift, never mind everybody else. Is that the way you see it?"
________________
Are we talking generalities here, or the specific situation in Blacksburg? They did not violate any law I've ever heard of. Why are you assuming they did? Got a link to the law you claim they violated?
_______________
"JohnBT: so, is a rifle the best tool for working 2' to 3' away from an automobile. as shown in the photo linked to earlier? You tell me; you're the expert."
Expert? Me? You're the one preaching like you know what you're talking about. I still don't agree with what you're passing off as logic. Example:
"a criminal has bettter short-term choices than coming out shooting" Since he had already murdered I suggest that he had already demonstrated that he was not acting rationally and making smart choices. In fact, an argument can be made that he was completely out of control - a mad dog if you will. I don't fault the police for being prepared and a handgun is not the best choice in terms of stopping power or accuracy.
John
edited to correct some of my poor grammar
"I don't fault the police for being prepared and a handgun is not the best choice in terms of stopping power or accuracy."
Not that this has anything to do with anything, but do you think a .223 has better stopping power than, say, a 9mm FMJ? Let's assume they're both going to enter and exit the target. That being the case, would you rather get hit by a 62 grain bullet or a 147 grain bullet?
"Are we talking generalities here, or the specific situation in Blacksburg? They did not violate any law I've ever heard of. Why are you assuming they did? Got a link to the law you claim they violated?"
CODE OF VIRGINIA
§ 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.
so a police officer is not justified or excusable in executing thier duties? If not then every police officer in the State of VA should be brought up on charges.
Dont get me wrong. Putting your weapon in a by standers face is not right. But there has to be a happy medium where the intent of the law, is superceded by the exercising of the officers duty to ensure public safety. IMHO.
spacemanspiff
New member
Are you still prattling on about this? Good grief man, give it up. Accept the FACT that Law Enforcement Officers can point their weapons at people to get their job done.
"so a police officer is not justified or excusable in executing thier duties? If not then every police officer in the State of VA should be brought up on charges."
Police get to draw and aim their weapons for the same reasons we do: when they are in danger, fear for their safety, or when they are protecting someone else. The only difference is that they have official duties that they have to perform that we don't. But if they are performing those duties, and are not in danger, fearing for their safety or protecting someone else, they they have no special privileges.
If you want to argue that police can just walk around aiming their weapons at everyone just because there is a killer walking around and they fear for their safety, then you're arguing that any joe schmo can walk around the local bank aiming his shotgun at people because another bank got held up and he fears for his safety.
Police get to draw and aim their weapons for the same reasons we do: when they are in danger, fear for their safety, or when they are protecting someone else. The only difference is that they have official duties that they have to perform that we don't. But if they are performing those duties, and are not in danger, fearing for their safety or protecting someone else, they they have no special privileges.
If you want to argue that police can just walk around aiming their weapons at everyone just because there is a killer walking around and they fear for their safety, then you're arguing that any joe schmo can walk around the local bank aiming his shotgun at people because another bank got held up and he fears for his safety.
- Status