30 LAPD Officers Gun Down Man In Middle Of Freeway...

[StarryEyed]

Hey Kriq Sa, I REALLY sympathize with your frustration. I believe there should be way more culpability for LEO and I believe civil review should be mandatory. Human nature being what it is, nobody should be trusted to police themselves - certainly not cops!

That said, I think you are wrong here.

I'll echo what a lot of others with weapons training have already said: Hitting a moving target in a limb with a hand gun is a tall order. Like most everyone, your perceptions regarding weapons have been heavily influenced by Hollywood. Any type of weapons training be it civilian, police or military always emphasize that you should NEVER attempt to shoot to wound a moving target who is threatening you. This is because of real-life limits of weapon accuracy and realistic shooting skill.

You similarly over-estimate the ability of a LEO to safely disarm someone with knife - even a woman with a screw driver. Again, your perception is clouded by Hollywood. Even if the officer can successfully do it 99% of the time (doubtful), that means they have a 1% chance of being killed. Take a pair of ten-sided role-playing dice and give them a roll. If they both come up zero, you're dead. Care to take those odds?

An unarmed police force in a country where every citizen may own firearms? Completely impractical.

This is coming from a person who has a very low opinion of the average LEO. I think a lot of them are brainless bullies. I think there is way too much trust of them and that they should be held way more accountable than they are and by civil authority. But they absolutely have to be able to defend themselves in a realistic manner.

I suggest you do some research on self-defense, both armed and unarmed. You'll find its nothing like Hollywood.

 

[Star Wolf]

The memory is coming back. This situation was how the Rodney King incident started. The highway patrolman approached with his weapon ready as he had been trained since the Newhall incident where 4 patrolmen died. An LAPD sergeant took over the arrest because he didn't think guns were necessary and they went less then lethel with their clubs and the rest as they say was history.

 

[K'riq Sa]

Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones, and That'll Just Hurt...

I'm still wondering where the "30 cops" and "hail of gunfire" came from. The article the OP linked to says "A Los Angeles police officer fatally shot a motorist in Sherman Oaks today at the end of a car chase that started east of downtown."

Makes it sound more like a thoughtless firing squad execution and less like a tactical decision that way.


Regarding the question at hand; I have never carried a gun, nor do I wish to. In fact, if we were issued mandatory firearms, I would probably resign. I think armed police escalate criminal conflict - when the police carry guns, the criminals carry guns to defend themselves.
But once you've begun that cycle, one side can't just pull out. Firearms are entrenched in LA - I wouldn't want to be the one who took them away from the police. You're going to see a lot more bodies if you do that.
So to answer the question, I'd ideally choose an unarmed police force, but once you've gone down that road, you can't undo it.

I on the other hand, shoot, own, respect and love guns. They are a great source for obtaining food, their a fun and entertaining sport, as well as a excellent means of defense. With a gun, in some cases all you have to do is to display it as a sign of strength, not even draw or raise for it to be effective. I have no problem with responsible with guns, but this is not what we are talking about here.

I was thinking it would be more of a gradual effect and not a sudden one. For instance, a their would be a unit introduce into the system called "Protocol Enforcers" or "PE's for short. At the beginning, every patrol car would contain one Policeman and one PE, the PE making the initial contact on any "Class 2-3 and 4" incidents and the policeman would make the stop in a Class 1 encounter. This PE would be unarmed and trained in Mediation, Conflict Management, Respectful Social Protocols, and acceptable Eqtique. I belive with the change in how our Law Enforcement aproaches to enforce the rules, we will recriprcate will less and less incidents ending tragically.

This is why cops should be armed

Two NYPD auxiliary police officers were shot and killed by a heavily-armed gunman in a volley of gunfire on the streets of Greenwich Village around nine o'clock Wednesday night, after the suspect had fatally shot a restaurant employee.


Investigators say the volunteer officers — Nicholas Pekearo and Yevgeniy 'Eugene' Marshalik — as well as responding officers from the sixth precinct began chasing the suspect after he fired 15 shots at an employee at DeMarco's pizzeria on West Houston Street near Macdougal, killing 35-year-old Alfredo Romero.

http://www.ny1.com/?SecID=1000&ArID=67691

It should be noted that NYPD Auxiliary Police do not carry weapons. If these two officers had firearms on them, they would probably still be alive

I read your article and it describes a unit exactly like the one I stated above. And they prove what I am saying is a viable alternative. Not only do they go on to prove my theory is sound, and has been in effect since 1992, with statistics, they go one to provide clues on how to improve what they have in place now, to make the unit force to be safer and more effective. Thank you.

As to your second comment, I think you assume to much, they may have died even with guns. There may have been more casualties from the untrained force doing gun battle in the crowd with the shooter. Depending on what they may have been out gunned by the criminal causing him to unload those powerful weapons on the crowd in self-defense, and if they, knowing there was guns involved, should have maintained a "Observe and Report" posture. You never know, stupidity may have played a big part in their deaths.

worse case I would have shot him in the leg, or legs, i think that would have pretty much stopped his forward momentum, ya think?

Shooting someone in the leg is much much easier said than done. There is a reason why people are trained to shoot center mass. It's very easy to miss a limb, at which point in time you need to worry about a ricochet and other issues

just saying, 30-1 is not a fair fight anyway, especially against trained gangsters monkeys in uniforms.

and fyi, i too have cops in my family...

Its not supposed to be

Of course it's much easier to shoot someone in the chest than it is to shoot them in the leg, but if thirty well trained cops had aimed, and shot for his legs, i'm positive, some one would have hit him. Don't you think? and the guy would be alive today.

I know it's not supposed to be a fair fight, because it's not suppose to be a fight, period.

Maybe it's my compassion clouding my judgment.

This implies that anyone not agreeing with you has no compassion. You may not intend the implication, but the implication is in the words.

But when someone, incoherent, and babbling comes toward me, and 29 of my trigger happy buddies, carrying a knife, and we have a guns.

This does a disservice to all of the responsible LA cops (and cops everywhere) who are not the trigger-happy exceptions. Again, you generalize and imply, but this time it is a clear insult.

Him having a bigger problem is irrelevant to the problem he is presenting, that of an armed person who is apparently intending harm and of questionable self-control.

Feel free to get in taser range of someone with a knife and apparently willing to use it.

worse case I would have shot him in the leg, or legs, i think that would have pretty much stopped his forward momentum, ya think?

That's a idea I will not argue with. "Stopping" an assailant armed with a knife need not include "killing." Though it is possible he could throw the knife, a second shot--to the arm--would do this. Now, do you think that a cop would have such wonderful aim in the heat of the moment to ensure the shot would be to the leg and/or arm, and miss vital organs or anyone on the other side of the assailant?

just saying, 30-1 is not a fair fight anyway, especially against trained gangsters monkeys in uniforms.

Cut and paste: This does a disservice to all of the responsible LA cops (and cops everywhere) who are not the trigger-happy exceptions. Again, you generalize and imply, but this time it is a clear insult.

I am not implying that anyone not agreeing with me has no compassion. I am only implying that these officers are not compassion only questioning why they are not using it. My word are what they are read int them what you will it is your prerogative.

Unfortunately, yes it does a disservice to all of the responsible LA cops (and cops everywhere) who are not the trigger-happy exceptions, they know who they are, and know we are not referring to them. Sadly, they are guilty by association because of these exception, and they know the sooner we solve this dilemma, the sooner the can hold their head up and server the public with respect and dignity they truly deserve.

Him having a bigger problem is exactly the problem he is presenting, that of an armed person, who's actions may harm others, due to questionable self-control. I'm dishearten that you feel it is not up to us, as this new global village, to not first take in to account of an individuals wellbeing first, and foremost rather than elimination being the standard MO in these incidents.

As far as getting in taser range of someone with a knife and apparently willing to use it, I'm sure you are familiar with Plexy Riot shields, I would be in little, or no danger. Geeze he only had a knife. Every patrol car has them in the trunk as standard issue, had they reached for these rather then their guns the guy would still be alive.

Thanks for at least agreeing to shoot people in the leg, rather than go for the kill shot ,as the answer for every encounter.

Cut and paste: Unfortunately yes, it does a disservice to all of the responsible LA cops (and cops everywhere) who are not the trigger-happy exceptions, but they should know who they are, and know we are not referring to them. Sadly, they are guilty by association because of these exception, and they know the sooner we solve this dilemma, the sooner they can hold their head up, and continue serve the public with respect, and dignity they truly deserve.

Once again, the Los Angeles Police department has murdered another citizen. 30 police shot a bi-polar man down in a hail of bullets. They claim he was wielding a knife. A fucking knife, Shit if 30 police were that scared of one man with a knife, this can only be classified as a Gangland style murder.

"Murder" is a specific crime, and it is up to the justice system in California to decide if that's what happened. Using the term in the post above is just inflammatory.

The story linked doesn't say anything about bi-polar or how many police fired, BTW.

Next time they should call me, I'm pretty sure I could have taken him down by myself.

Or you could be wrong and be fatally stabbed. If you're in that position and that's the risk you are prepared to run, more power to you. But I have no problem with someone who values their own life enough to not risk it.



So what was the finding in the case you refer to above? I am all for civilian police review boards, prosecuting LEOs that violate the law and disciplining those that violate their agencies' policies. But if the officer on-scene assesses the situation and decides that deadly force is need to prevent the loss of someone else's life, I give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise.



The comparison to London is not valid because firearms, and especially handguns, are not nearly as common in he UK, nor are the numbers of law enforcement personnel killed in the line of duty. Sending LEO's out unarmed to perform their duties in many parts of the United States would be a death sentence. Having to wait to assemble and deploy SWAT-type teams would give violent criminals a huge immediate tactical advantage and much more opportunity to escape.

Take a look at the Fort Hood shootings. The officers that returned fire and stopped the shooter were not part of a SWAT team, but regular patrol officers. That is usually how things happen.



There are very good reasons why LEOs are trained to fire at the center of body mass when deadly force is justified. One, it's a bigger target and handguns are easy to miss with, especially in the adrenaline-pumped confusion of a gun fight. Two, someone shot in the leg could still kill someone else.

just saying, 30-1 is not a fair fight anyway,

Why should it be fair? We are not talking about a high school wrestling match, we are talking about people going home alive after a day's work or not.

especially against trained gangsters monkeys in uniforms.

And there it is. At least you haven't tried to hide your bias.

--Justin

My accusations are merely an opinion, base on observation and my personal experiences. An opinion that you are free to agree, or disagree with, and pulls no weight other than that, that the internet gives me.

Give me more credit than that, to think i would try too rush in, and try to single handedly, attempt to disarm a crazed knife wielding lunatic with little more than a round house kick, and my kung fu grip. I'm smarter than that thought you were. (see solution above)

As far The officers in question concerning the fatal shooting of the Mentally challenged homeless women who simply wanted to be left alone, (i personally knew of her, and tried to reach out, and help at one time, unsuccessfully, she wanted nothing from anyone, and would chase well meaning people away offering food, money, or any type of assitance, away), were found not-guilty, but so was OJ, so there you go. But that is a whole nother thread...

The comparison to London is especially valid, because the system is based on non-violent confrontation to enforce the law, rather than everything being a show of force, and domination and control of another due to an ego based approach they generally take. I am generally suspect of any man who thinks he can approach me with the attitude the he is better or has some authority over me, this will automatically make him my enemy, as far as I am concerned , and I don't care how you feel about this. I will not be a victim or accidental casualty of the rouge cop who happens to be the "exception" you so nimbly hide behind.

And as far sending LEO's out unarmed, to perform their duties in many parts of the United States would be a death sentence. I think that is pretty much everywhere these days look at the stats. And beside that, it seems to be working in New York, with some necessary changes.

The officers that returned fire and stopped the shooter were MPs, guarding a secure Military facility. Are you comparing apples and oranges, or in this case donuts and snackcakes?

Yes, there are very good reasons why LEOs are trained to fire at the center of body mass when deadly force is justified, arguably this was not one of those situations. You said "especially in the adrenaline-pumped confusion of a gun fight. He had a knife for Christ sake,there was no gunfight, and there were thirty of them, not two. Yes, someone shot in the leg could still kill, if the shot broke your tibia, and in the process of falling to ground, you fell on it, and stabbed yourself in the heart.

No , its not fair, ask the guy's family. Yeah those thirty cops went home, the ordinary citizen? not so much...

and concerning the opinion that some police are nothing more than trained gangsters monkeys in uniforms, I stand by that. To truly believe in your opinion, by its very nature, means to be biased toward a certain side of the truth.

simply,
k'riq

 

[clint g]

Re: Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones, and That'll Just Hurt...

I read your article and it describes a unit exactly like the one I stated above. And they prove what I am saying is a viable alternative. Not only do they go on to prove my theory is sound, and has been in effect since 1992, with statistics, they go one to provide clues on how to improve what they have in place now, to make the unit force to be safer and more effective. Thank you.

You need to do more research, the NYPD Aux make up a very small fraction of the NYPD. They're volunteers who patrol neighborhoods to keep track of crime. There's only 4,500 of them in a police force of about 40,000.

As to your second comment, I think you assume to much, they may have died even with guns. There may have been more casualties from the untrained force doing gun battle in the crowd with the shooter. Depending on what they may have been out gunned by the criminal causing him to unload those powerful weapons on the crowd in self-defense, and if they, knowing there was guns involved, should have maintained a "Observe and Report" posture. You never know, stupidity may have played a big part in their deaths.

Maybe, but at least with guns they would have had a fighting chance

Of course it's much easier to shoot someone in the chest than it is to shoot them in the leg, but if thirty well trained cops had aimed, and shot for his legs, i'm positive, some one would have hit him. Don't you think? and the guy would be alive today.

Have you seen 30 rounds go off in one direction? That shit bounces. Now imagine 30 rounds going off at a target as small as someones leg. You would have 30 rounds flying off into the distance, probably killing a pedestrian or driver.

I know it's not supposed to be a fair fight, because it's not suppose to be a fight, period.

Um, actually it is.

 

[K'riq Sa]

... THIS TIME NO TONGUE .....

Once again, the Los Angeles Police department has murdered another citizen.

Murder? Let's see the jury verdict for the defendant(s), please.

And is there a link to see how this event really went down?

30 police shot a bi-polar man down in a hail of bullets. They claim he was wielding a knife. A fucking knife, Shit if 30 police were that scared of one man with a knife, this can only be classified as a Gangland style murder.

No, it's procedure. Would you feel better if the alleged bi-polar, knife wielding citizen was shot and killed by a hail of only one bullet from 30 cops? What ratio of cop's bullets to stabby is acceptable for you? How about 2 cops firing 5,000 bullets? What in the world difference does it make? For whatever reason, the police took him down through procedure; procedure that protects them and the public. And if they broke procedure there will be a price to pay. So the lesson here... DON'T EVER ATTACK THE POLICE -- they might just have to take your life.

Next time they should call me, I'm pretty sure I could have taken him down by myself. This is getting too common, who's next?

Bring deadly force with you - it could save your life.

Last I heard, you didn't need a jury to have an opinion. And as to whether being proven innocent by said jury, does that really means anything anymore, i refer you to the case of "OJ vs the World".

And I would feel better if that poor man had not been shot. I pray to God he's not a returning Veteran, in shock from that hell hole in the Middle east, that would make this even sadder than it already is.

Procedure , Somcedure, if you stick to, and continue to justify this barbaric attempt at control you are just as guilty by turning a blind eye to injustice. They've got alternative soft force weapons to use; beanbags taser, pepperspray, shields, nets, and my favorite the old retreat, and run around the car like a little girl. These should be standard and the norm, not the other way around.

Deadly Force? why sir, i am a southern gentleman, we abhor violence above all else, and consider it a primitive, and barbaric way to deal with a problem. Which is why i have tried to raise my ability to negotiate and debate too an artform, and it is only exceeded by my ability to bullshit and confound, which i consider these my most powerful weapons (once my bullets run out), or hadn't you noticed.


againly,
k'riq

 

[scotpens]

Re: Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones, and That'll Just Hurt...

. . . I am generally suspect of any man who thinks he can approach me with the attitude the he is better or has some authority over me, this will automatically make him my enemy, as far as I am concerned, and I don't care how you feel about this.

Exqueeze me. A police officer DOES have authority over you, whether you like it or not. That doesn't mean he thinks he's better than you. It's how society operates. We make laws, and we have police to enforce them.

You don't like cops, fine. Try to organize a society without them. I'd be interested to see how it works.

 

[K'riq Sa]

First off, I'll let any man speak his piece, but after that, the only authority anyone has over me, is the authority I relinquish to them.

we'd all have tranq guns, and when ever there was a sqirmish we'd shoot each other, and we'd all sleep it off. problem solved

next.


formally,
k'riq

 

[Shazam!]

A guy had killed an officer and his K-9 unit.

 

[John Picard]

First off, I'll let any man speak his piece, but after that, the only authority anyone has over me, is the authority I relinquish to them.

we'd all have tranq guns, and when ever there was a sqirmish we'd shoot each other, and we'd all sleep it off. problem solved

next.


formally,
k'riq

"Speak his peace" and "skirmish". For someone with so much (self proclaimed) wisdom you certain don't show any.

find it comical that you refer to yourself as a "southern gentleman", yet you present yourself with an attitude and a chip on your shoulder.

I am generally suspect of any man who thinks he can approach me with the attitude the he is better or has some authority over me, this will automatically make him my enemy, as far as I am concerned , and I don't care how you feel about this. I will not be a victim or accidental casualty of the rouge cop who happens to be the "exception" you so nimbly hide behind.

 

[MANT!]

Yes American officers require firearms for the safety of themselves and the public.

I have several good friends who are police officers.. they are more afraid of "Internal Investigations" than they are of the criminals.. Every time a firearm is discharged in the line of duty, they are automatically investigated by these "Unrealistic, By the Book, Rule-Bound Nazis!" (in one's words) and if any actual mistake was made or departmental rule not followed TO THE LETTER..they stand NO chance of advancement.. depending upon the severity of the issue, they sometimes will be discharged from the force and in extreme cases, they can be prosecuted and jailed.

It's a rather effective deterrent to the untempered use of deadly force..

 

[J.T.B.]

The officers that returned fire and stopped the shooter were MPs, guarding a secure Military facility. Are you comparing apples and oranges, or in this case donuts and snackcakes?

No, that's wrong. The Fort Hood shooter was stopped by civilian police officers, not MPs. They were just like cops in any average town, they just happened to be employed by the Department of the Army. There are a lot of civilians on military bases who are not covered by military law, and many large bases (and other large federal installations) have police departments.

and concerning the opinion that some police are nothing more than trained gangsters monkeys in uniforms, I stand by that. To truly believe in your opinion, by its very nature, means to be biased toward a certain side of the truth.

You didn't say "some" before. The bias you have against law enforcement has come through loud and clear, to the extent that it would be pointless to discuss this any further.

--Justin

 

[K'riq Sa]

First off, I'll let any man speak his piece, but after that, the only authority anyone has over me, is the authority I relinquish to them.

we'd all have tranq guns, and when ever there was a sqirmish we'd shoot each other, and we'd all sleep it off. problem solved

next.


formally,
k'riq

"Speak his peace" and "skirmish". For someone with so much (self proclaimed) wisdom you certain don't show any.

find it comical that you refer to yourself as a "southern gentleman", yet you present yourself with an attitude and a chip on your shoulder.

I am generally suspect of any man who thinks he can approach me with the attitude the he is better or has some authority over me, this will automatically make him my enemy, as far as I am concerned , and I don't care how you feel about this. I will not be a victim or accidental casualty of the rouge cop who happens to be the "exception" you so nimbly hide behind.

yes, i am very complex, aren't you? sometimes i amaze and disgust myself all in one thought.


k'riq

 

[K'riq Sa]

The officers that returned fire and stopped the shooter were MPs, guarding a secure Military facility. Are you comparing apples and oranges, or in this case donuts and snackcakes?

No, that's wrong. The Fort Hood shooter was stopped by civilian police officers, not MPs. They were just like cops in any average town, they just happened to be employed by the Department of the Army. There are a lot of civilians on military bases who are not covered by military law, and many large bases (and other large federal installations) have police departments.

and concerning the opinion that some police are nothing more than trained gangsters monkeys in uniforms, I stand by that. To truly believe in your opinion, by its very nature, means to be biased toward a certain side of the truth.

You didn't say "some" before. The bias you have against law enforcement has come through loud and clear, to the extent that it would be pointless to discuss this any further.

--Justin

Ok, i'm wrong, I assumed, on a normal military base the responding force would consist of MP's not civilian police, simply because they generally do not have jurisdiction.

yes, i did generalize a little, to that i apologize, and to clarify, i added the "some" because we all know in all it's iterations, the one bad apple syndrome, it normally doesn't equally apply to all the apples.


substantially,
k'riq

 

[gturner]

Re: Sticks and Stones Will Break My Bones, and That'll Just Hurt...

[I am generally suspect of any man who thinks he can approach me with the attitude the he is better or has some authority over me, this will automatically make him my enemy, as far as I am concerned , and I don't care how you feel about this. I will not be a victim or accidental casualty of the rouge cop who happens to be the "exception" you so nimbly hide behind.

Only in Hollywood would we find someone who hates rouge cops. Damn those makeup Nazis!

 

[JarodRussell]

There's a lot of articles about this on Google, and I cannot find a single one that mentions anything about 30 police officers being involved.

THIS.

The whole thread is based on claims that have never been backed up by anyone.

First off, I'll let any man speak his piece, but after that, the only authority anyone has over me, is the authority I relinquish to them.

So in other words, you're only paying your taxes because you allow the state to get a share of your money.

 

[tkron]

Alternate solution: Instead of disarming the police, why not give the law-abiding citizens a chance to defend themselves against crime? If that means giving us guns, that means giving us AK-47s. Let those of us who might become victims of crime a chance to produce our own hail of bullets. We can at least claim self-defense.

 

[K'riq Sa]

I don't know if you have ever watched one of these car chases end, but when they pull out the perp is usually surround by min. 15 cop cars, the standard one, or two K9 dogs, and 10 TMZ reporters.

i pay my taxes because, i've met bubba, and where we did not become close friends, he impressed me not to cross paths again.

arm civilians? uh... no.

if anything, disarm everybody.


k'riq




k'riq

 

[John Picard]

uh... no.




k'riq

 

[mtblillie]

That probably has more to do with how gun crazy the average american is. I'm not saying that ppl in australia aren't gun crazy, but trust me its a big issue of controvercy. The government is trying to make gun laws more like other countries but there is a line in our constitution that suggests that everyone has the right to "bear arms" though that is very vague it has kept guns in the hands of ppl that shouldnt have them.

Bottom line is everytime somebody gets shot in this country by a cop everyone always screams "cops are trigger happy" and it drives me nuts! Im an EMT/firefighter and trust me, there are A LOT more ppl shooting each other than cops shooting citizens. If a cop feels threatened, he will shoot the person, because if he doesn't, that person will hurt or kill somebody else and there is no BS if ands or buts about that.

I'm sorry I know everyone has the right to an opinion but ppl spend too much time listening to the media and not enough time finding out the facts about any given situation.

 

[Neroon]

Someone's getting wound up here, but I'm not sure exactly who......