matt2636
Regular Member
agreed. since when does it make it a capitol offense to carry a gun?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Grandpa-shooting Arizona officer has five previous kills under his belt
- Thread starter ThatOneChick
- Start date
agreed. since when does it make it a capitol offense to carry a gun?
davidmcbeth
Banned
Ruby Ridge .... and he'll get away with it just like they did back then.
The grand-pa DID knock over a trash can .. what do you expect the cops to do?
This is why I recommend all citizens to issue a notice of trespass to their towns ... that way you know if they are coming up your drive that they are there to arrest you & if not, they are coming for you to arrest them. Either way, someones getting arrested!
The grand-pa DID knock over a trash can .. what do you expect the cops to do?
This is why I recommend all citizens to issue a notice of trespass to their towns ... that way you know if they are coming up your drive that they are there to arrest you & if not, they are coming for you to arrest them. Either way, someones getting arrested!
Last edited:
jesus christ. more UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion stated as fact
why does this not surprise me?
what is true is stats are hard to come by, since they are voluntarily reported, spotty at best, etc. we are a democratic republic with thousands of police agencies
that being said, i have seen various stats, SOMEWHAT consistent and obviously far more frequent than you believe
iow, you have a prejudice, and you spout a bogus statistic to help "support it"
there Is no official tracking #.
btw, LAPD does excellent reports on their UOF's
just as an example for a (somehwat) representative dept),
here's 2009 report:http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/2009YearEndReportFinal.pdf
roughly 1% of their officers discharged a firearm at a person in 2009 (LAPD actually has, contrary to public image, pretty low deadly force rate compared to other large cities)
again, given a 20 yr career, pretty decent chance an officer would discharge LOD
here's SPD from 2010 http://www.seattle.gov/police/publications/policy/UseofForceReport2010.pdf
six shooting incidents. i couldn't find exact # of officers who fired, just how many incidents, but based on whether they say "officer" vs. "officers" and assuming for officers (for the sake of averages) 3 were involved in the plural incidents, that would give you 14 officers involved
SPD is vague on how many OFFICERS they have, saying they have 1820 personnel, but their guild website has 1250 members, so again we have a little over 1% in any given year
again, both SPD and LAPD have LOW use of force rates (comparatively speaking), and low deadly force rates. i think a national average of about 2% per year is probably about right.
some agencies like oakland, baltimore, etc. are MUCH higher
i think 2% is a reasonable ESTIMATE
one police class i took said the best estimate they could get (DOJ) was an officer fired his gun AT A PERSON (obviously not looking at animal euthanasia, training stuff etc.) on duty about once for every 14 yrs of duty
this was for all officers, so obviously some assignments would be less, others would be more, but it averaged out such that it was one every 14 yrs
the "best" stat i could find was the average range in a given year for officer weapons discharge (at a person ) was 2 to 6 per 100
anyway, i think the primary point is correct. anytime an officer has vastly different stats, iow a disparity, it needs to be looked into. our agency has a system that AUTOMATICALLY triggers inquiries and flags when various stats are out of balance - collision rate, shooting rate, complaint rate, UOF rate, etc
the study did APPEAR to be biased urban, though
assume 3 arguendo
so, 3% of officers in a given year fire their gun
i'm not a hyooge stats guy, but assuming a 25 yr career and a 3% chance in any given year, a cop will fire his gun... well, a lot more than .00001% of cops will ever fire their gun lod.
but again, these stats are difficult to compile for the feds, or a national clearing house.
5 previous homicides IS a lot. it could mena nothing, iow statistical anomaly OR it could be indicative of some issue
TechnoWeenie
Regular Member
Here's the problem I have (with you).
You just went on some huge rant, just to end up with 'Well F#(&, I Don't know either!'....
The way the situation was described, it's presumable that the officer already has his rifle out, and already had it aimed...in the first seconds of confrontation.
To me, it says he's trigger happy. Not 'should I shoot?', but 'when can I get a clear shot?'
The 'I saw something in his hand' is the always present ******** response that you always hear to justify ANY shooting of an unarmed suspect... Whether it be a cellphone, a key, or a friggin hersheys bar, it's always 'I saw something in his hand'...
except that's not remotely relevant to the point i was addressign (how utterly unshocking)
1) i was not addressing the propriety of this shoot AT ALL. nor did i state or imply that i was
2) i was addressing the fallacious "stat" that even if a purposeful exaggeration was just grossly not reflective of reality. iow, it was a self-serving false statement to support a conclusion. one could state a reasonable estimate of how often the average cop uses deadly force to give an ACCURATE picture of the disparity, which is what i did. or one could make some kind of "99.999..%" claim which evidences bias and disregard for facts
3) the MAIN point is that a disparity is just that. it's a reason to look further. given sufficent "n", and any cop has lots of 'n' because they will get into literally thousands of contacts over the course of a career
if an average officer needs to use deadly force in 1/20,000 (for sake of argument), but this officer turns out to be so vastly disproportionate that he used it in 1/3,000 (i made it a seven fold difference for the sake of argument) that RAISES QUESTIONS
but that's ALL it does. given thousands of officers, and given how statistics work, even if all officers were perfectly diligent, you will necesasrily see such statsitical anomalies
if you flip a coin 50,000 times, you WILL see some very long strings of heads or tails in a row.
that's how probability works
shootings are very rare. yet, it sometimes happens a cop gets into a shooting literally his FIRST day on his own after field training.
kind of like shark attacks. rare, even for surfers (im a surfer) but i met a surfer once who had been attacked TWICE
what are the chance of that?
this i basic statistics. a statistical anomaly is cause to LOOK furhter, but it is not proof of wrongdoing.
again, officers have THOUSANDS of "N". so, you WILL see officer disparities, just like you will with sufficient coin flips
also, there is this GEM from you, that again shows (what you have already demonstrated) the holes in your analytical reasoning
"The 'I saw something in his hand' is the always present ******** response that you always hear to justify ANY shooting of an unarmed suspect... Whether it be a cellphone, a key, or a friggin hersheys bar, it's always 'I saw something in his hand'.."
well, yes. quite often you. and yet, officers see "something in people's hands" literally THOUSANDS OF INCIDENTS and DO NOT SHOOT for every one that they shoot.
iow, you have to look at the totality of the circs.
you are looking at a shooting, and saying "they always say in these shootings". well, of course they do. why do you think he shot? because he WANTED to? seriously? like he just said 'screw it. i'ma gonna shoot?"
if you assume nefarious intent, you just bias your perception from the beginnng, for whatever "perception" you have
of course you don't ALWAYS hear "i saw soemthing in his hand" to justify shooting an unarmed person btw. among other reasons, there are lots of situations where a cop (or anybody for that matter) can does legally shoot somebody without seeing anything in his hands. heck, there are situations where it's legal to shoot a person you know is unarmed and is running away from you.
the point is, i am not discussing the facts of the instant case, or wasn't in this thread. i was addressign the specious logic and false statements made by a poster and then i am welcomed with your (typical) illogic.
in brief, regarding the hands. the FBI comes out with guidelines and extensive reviews of incidents where officers get shot, shot at, and or killed. and there are certain things officers (and people who carry and who read this kind of literature) are trained ot look out for.
and yes, there aren't a lot of people who are shot and killed by foot rifles. so, yes. we look at ... wait for it... THE HANDS
my best friend was shot and killed by a gangster thug. i'll give you a hint as to where the gun was.
i was in a shooting with a guy who missed my head by about two feet. where do you think the gun was?
yes, we have these things called hands and they are the body part we generally use to hold weapons
i am not opining on whether the shoot was justified or not. but when i see blatantly nonfactual rubbish, i respond to it. as i did here. and will continue to do
wrightme
Regular Member
Being long-winded and condescending does not make you more correct.
OC for ME
Regular Member
So, let me see if I have this straight. A cop shoots a citizen and there is no mandatory tracking/reporting of the shoot to a third party (FBI)?
If I stub my big toe on the job site, OSHA and the Labor Dept. get a report for tracing purposes, but a cop guns down a citizen, nope not required. This is BS to the inth degree.
Heck, cops will generate a report when no crime was committed....cough....OCer getting unlawfully hassled by a cop....cough....
Anyone who thinks this is OK, or does not care one way or the other, especially a cop, is no friend of liberty. Just another reason to never cooperate with LE unless required to by law.
As to
If I stub my big toe on the job site, OSHA and the Labor Dept. get a report for tracing purposes, but a cop guns down a citizen, nope not required. This is BS to the inth degree.
Heck, cops will generate a report when no crime was committed....cough....OCer getting unlawfully hassled by a cop....cough....
Anyone who thinks this is OK, or does not care one way or the other, especially a cop, is no friend of liberty. Just another reason to never cooperate with LE unless required to by law.
As to
Tennessee v. Garner. Qualification of this comment is paramount, especially a jurisdictional qualification. This 'it's legal' part will almost never ever be applied to a citizen outside their home. But, when it comes to cops gunning down citizens, claim officer safety and receive qualified immunity.
ThatOneChick
Regular Member
Probably because they don't want us to know the truth.
Gil223
Regular Member
Inasmuch as you have expressed your own "UNSUBSTANTIATED opinion" on several occasions, (and I have supported your right to do so) I cannot see where this becomes an issue for the intervention of J.C. However, let me explain this one more time... OPINIONS NEED NOT BE "SUBSTANTIATED" OR SUPPORTED BY ANYTHING!:banghead: An opinion is "a view, judgment, belief, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter." It is my opinion that Venator is correct in his assumption that the shooting "stinks on ice", and although his percentage figure seems a bit exaggerated (and I can find no "reliable source" for stats), I recall reading or hearing that officers who have never even had to draw their weapon has been reported to be in something like the 98th percentile. But, as I have said before, "figures can lie - and liars can figure." Pax...