Once again, non-compliant legal wanna-be gets himself shot

[WuWei]

Dead, for refusing to stand and deliver over a tax stamp.

[Samm]

@WuWei

@Samm

Who are you to say that he didn’t see the man pull his gun from its holster?

Who are you to say he did.

I’m not. I’m saying that the cop said he did.

[Toll_Collector]

@Steel-W0LF

@Toll_Collector

@Steel-W0LF

@Toll_Collector

@Steel-W0LF

@Toll_Collector

@Steel-W0LF

“Don’t fire unless fired at.” was the rules of engagement I had to operate under in a combat zone, not in the US, against people that were our enemies and not US citizens……

Why are the rules of engagement looser for cops in our own country shooting our own citizens than in a war zone dealing with enemy combatants?

Change cops rules of engagement to match a soldiers. Any that can’t operate like that are in the wrong line of work to begin with.

Wait for the civilian to start shooting before you can fire back? Police officers are not soldiers, I think we’d have no police officers under those rules.

I don’t agree. We’d have a different type of person in the police force. It would be a public service again and not “a job”. It would be the folks who are willing to put themselves between the bad stuff out there, and the rest of folks.

Without some specific polling to prove it, I would bet a large number of police out there are already this type. You can be a protector mindset individual under the modern rules and no one will even bat an eye at the story.

Basically you do for everyone what most folks just do for their own wife and kids. Be willing to stand between them and danger. The exact opposite of the cops that sat outside on their hands for an hour at that school shooting.

Sorry I just look at stories like this and go “we have the wrong type of people……. They don’t protect and serve the public, just themselves.

I don’t believe there are a large number of police in the force that would willingly watch you reach for a gun, and then allow that person to shoot at them first before they responded. I believe that number to be closer to 0.

We knew he was reaching?

Which video is that on?

One of the videos shows him reaching, but not what he was reaching for. But that wasn’t what I was questioning. I was questioning your rules of engagement. Only shoot if you’re being shot at. Reaching and or pointing a weapon is not shooting.

Reaching for or even pointing wasn’t within my RoE in Iraq. Shots fired with very few exceptions.

And in this story’s case maybe they could see the firearm and that he was clearly going for it. If that turns out to be true then changing the rules for cops wouldn’t have changed this outcome.

But we can all google and come up with multiple dozens or maybe even three digits of the number of cases where the cop “feared for his life” and no weapon was seen or even present.

I’m just questioning your initial statement on rules of engagement. I’m not even talking about this case, just your suggested rules of engagement. Don’t fire unless fired upon. That’s what you said. I took that to mean you can’t shoot unless someone is actively shooting at you. That’s not an option for the police force. They’re always going to act before they get shot.

[WuWei]

@Toll_Collector

That’s not an option for the police force.

Of course, it is.

@Toll_Collector

They’re always going to act before they get shot.

Not if the law requires otherwise.

[Samm]

So now you’re an advocate for the law?

[WuWei]

Laws prohibiting agents from the state from violating citizens’ rights? Oh you betcha.

2nd childhood?

[Steel-W0LF]

@Toll_Collector

I’m just questioning your initial statement on rules of engagement. I’m not even talking about this case, just your suggested rules of engagement. Don’t fire unless fired upon. That’s what you said. I took that to mean you can’t shoot unless someone is actively shooting at you. That’s not an option for the police force. They’re always going to act before they get shot.

If it’s an option in a war zone, why is it not an option against our own civilians.

That statement sounds backwards, and that’s because it is. It should be HARDER to kill our own citizens than to kill enemy combatants in a combat zone.

[zantax]

@Steel-W0LF

@Toll_Collector

I’m just questioning your initial statement on rules of engagement. I’m not even talking about this case, just your suggested rules of engagement. Don’t fire unless fired upon. That’s what you said. I took that to mean you can’t shoot unless someone is actively shooting at you. That’s not an option for the police force. They’re always going to act before they get shot.

If it’s an option in a war zone, why is it not an option against our own civilians.

That statement sounds backwards, and that’s because it is. It should be HARDER to kill our own citizens than to kill enemy combatants in a combat zone.

Can’t really see an argument against it, as long as that remains the rules of engagement for the armed services.

[Guvnah]

@zantax

as long as that remains the rules of engagement for the armed services.

Personally, I consider it a misguided ROE. War is hell. War SHOULD be hell, otherwise don’t do war.

[Samm]

@WuWei

Laws prohibiting agents from the state from violating citizens’ rights? Oh you betcha.

2nd childhood?

You tell me. You’re the one bent on vilifying cops on any pretense.

[WuWei]

Really weak.

Cops are villans - by definition.

[Samm]

@WuWei

Really weak.

Cops are villans - by definition.

You misspelled civilians. They should have the same right to defend themselves as you do.

[WuWei]

@Samm

@WuWei

Really weak.

Cops are villans - by definition.

You misspelled civilians. They should have the same right to defend themselves as you do.

Can I shoot someone for “furtive movement” because I’m dragging them out of their car?

[Samm]

You don’t have the authority to drag them out of their car.

[WuWei]

Do I at least have the “right” to shoot them for furtive movement? You know, like a cop

[Guvnah]

@WuWei

Do I at least have the “right” to shoot them for furtive movement? You know, like a cop

If you’re in a conflict with them and they suddenly reach for their gun, I would expect you most certainly would be in good standing if you did.

Surprised you even have to ask that.

[Samm]

@WuWei

Do I at least have the “right” to shoot them for furtive movement? You know, like a cop

If that furtive movement produces a gun in their hand, yes.

[WuWei]

@Samm

@WuWei

Do I at least have the “right” to shoot them for furtive movement? You know, like a cop

If that furtive movement produces a gun in their hand, yes.

It didn’t in this case. Just like the FBI, they shot without seeing a gun. Can I?

[Samm]

@WuWei

@Samm

@WuWei

Do I at least have the “right” to shoot them for furtive movement? You know, like a cop

If that furtive movement produces a gun in their hand, yes.

It didn’t in this case. Just like the FBI, they shot without seeing a gun. Can I?

Well, it wasn’t in his hand long. Just long enough to remove it from the holster before it fell to the floor of the vehicle.

And you don’t know that they didn’t see it. But we do know one of them said (emphatically) that he did see a gun and when it was all over, there was the empty holster and the gun, so …

[WuWei]

He never saw it. Just like Finnecum. You don’t know it was in his hand at all