Man kills 2 cops in apparent retaliation for police killings NYC

Logan 5 said:

Grape, you train cops. What would you reaction be in a couple of these scenarios, if they were cops you trained?
1. Two cops minding their own business are executed.
2. A dozen cops cuff and beat a hispanic man who's trying to keep his wife and daughter from fighting (Moore, OK).
3. A handful of cops invade an 85 year old man's home and shoot him to death, only to find out the address on the warrant is two blocks away.
4. Cop releases a woman after arresting her for shoplifting, then buys the food she stole and gave it to her.
5. Cop tazes a man keeping him from going into a burning house in search of his son (who died in the fire).

Nosy people want to know!

Click to expand...

I trained cops and correctional officers on policy & procedure and legal liability, so if you don't mind I'll take a crack at this while waiting for Grapeshot to respond.

(Grapeshot - do not read until you post your answers - don't want you to be unfairly influenced.)

1. Elements of situational awareness need to be stressed to the rest of the troops. It's hard to remember to look up & around every once in a while. Not enough info to say if those 2 cops were caught totally unawares - ambushes happen to the best-trained combat troops who are on high alert.

2. Cuffing was not only within policy & procedure but the proper thing to do as regards legal liability. As for the rest, going off the reservation is a good way to lose qualified immunity - there are better, safer, and more appropriate ways to control a subject who continues to struggle, and those techniques/tactics are (should be?) part of training.

3. Sadly, the courts have screwed this pooch. Failure to confirm you are at the right place does not take away your legal responsibility and ability to respond to perceived deadly threats. Theoretically, hesitatation that allowed another cop to be injured opens up civil liability. (Cops do not sue other cops. They have different ways of responding to negligence.)

4. "You are an idiot!" Not for deciding to not arrest/talk the shopkeeper out of pressing charges, but for perpetuating the notion that criminal behavior can be "excused" by circumstances. "Les Misirables" showed what happens when you tip too far towards absolutism, but the cop could have indulged in a little bit of street "restorative justice" by talking the two parties into a way she could work for the food. (There is always a floor that needs mopping - even if only for 5 minutes.)

5. Failure to act otherwise opens up both individual and organizational liability as well as violating policy & procedure. I can make the case three different ways as to why the cop(s) would be criminally liable if the guy was not prevented from going into the burning structure. The icing on the cake is that the cop(s) prevented the guy from endangering firefighters.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

I trained cops and correctional officers on policy & procedure and legal liability, so if you don't mind I'll take a crack at this while waiting for Grapeshot to respond.

(Grapeshot - do not read until you post your answers - don't want you to be unfairly influenced.)

1. Elements of situational awareness need to be stressed to the rest of the troops. It's hard to remember to look up & around every once in a while. Not enough info to say if those 2 cops were caught totally unawares - ambushes happen to the best-trained combat troops who are on high alert.

2. Cuffing was not only within policy & procedure but the proper thing to do as regards legal liability. As for the rest, going off the reservation is a good way to lose qualified immunity - there are better, safer, and more appropriate ways to control a subject who continues to struggle, and those techniques/tactics are (should be?) part of training.

3. Sadly, the courts have screwed this pooch. Failure to confirm you are at the right place does not take away your legal responsibility and ability to respond to perceived deadly threats. Theoretically, hesitatation that allowed another cop to be injured opens up civil liability. (Cops do not sue other cops. They have different ways of responding to negligence.)

4. "You are an idiot!" Not for deciding to not arrest/talk the shopkeeper out of pressing charges, but for perpetuating the notion that criminal behavior can be "excused" by circumstances. "Les Misirables" showed what happens when you tip too far towards absolutism, but the cop could have indulged in a little bit of street "restorative justice" by talking the two parties into a way she could work for the food. (There is always a floor that needs mopping - even if only for 5 minutes.)

5. Failure to act otherwise opens up both individual and organizational liability as well as violating policy & procedure. I can make the case three different ways as to why the cop(s) would be criminally liable if the guy was not prevented from going into the burning structure. The icing on the cake is that the cop(s) prevented the guy from endangering firefighters.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the post, skid. What are your thoughts on that road rage incident in WA?

The Truth said:

Thanks for the post, skid. What are your thoughts on that road rage incident in WA?

Click to expand...

[strike]Need a link or two to know what you are talking about.[/strike] - figured out which one you were referencing.

Working backwards - there should be (as in I'm anticipating it's existence as opposed to "they ought to have one") a policy on checking for the proper application of handcuffs, as well as documenting having one so when the arrestee complains. (Does not need to be checked right away, but within a reasonable amount of time after the scene is secured.)

"Put your hands behind your back" when the officer is not in physical control of the subject and has already at least patted him down? Really? Good way to become dead.

"Obstructing"? When the cop had to walk at least 20 paces to get to the guy? With all the other officers even farther away? Sounds/seems like someone's sense of "Authoti-tay!" needs recalibrating. But then I'm familiar on a personal level with the concept of arresting someone because they do not immediately roll over and jump through whatever hoop you are holding up.

If the scene needed to be controlled - limit access - then several oficers fell flat on their faces by not stopping the guy before he got in the middle of them. Once he was there the other officers fell flat on their face by not addressing and dealing with the intrusion into the scene. Makes me believe that was not a controlled-access scene, in spite of the dog wandering about looking for a bush/tree to pee on. (That is not how dogs behave/handlers work their dogs when casting for a scent.)

Bottom line - the arresting cop had better have his lies in order, and all the other officers lined up to tell the same lie, if he wants even a chance of making the charge stick. (And if everybody is telling the same story there is reason to believe it is a tory as opposed to a recitation of facts.)

stay safe.

Grapeshot said:

Gentlmen, please stay on topic. Take personal comments to PM, but be sure to mind the rules there also.

Click to expand...

Warnings given to multiple users/posters here regarding personal comments (insults) - now the deletions begin and that makes for a trainwreck thread. Address the facts, your opinion if you will, but leave the negative content outside. It is not wanted here.

Skidmark -

I've been away more than normal over the last few days, only to come back and find a couple of rat nests here and there. No insult intended to any user here, but people most of you have been here long enough to know better.

Bottom line on your request to not read first - it didn't work out that way

I do generally concur with your remarks in post #26 though.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...lice-killings-NYC/page6&p=2116939#post2116939

skidmark said:

[strike]Need a link or two to know what you are talking about.[/strike] - figured out which one you were referencing.

Working backwards - there should be (as in I'm anticipating it's existence as opposed to "they ought to have one") a policy on checking for the proper application of handcuffs, as well as documenting having one so when the arrestee complains. (Does not need to be checked right away, but within a reasonable amount of time after the scene is secured.)

"Put your hands behind your back" when the officer is not in physical control of the subject and has already at least patted him down? Really? Good way to become dead.

"Obstructing"? When the cop had to walk at least 20 paces to get to the guy? With all the other officers even farther away? Sounds/seems like someone's sense of "Authoti-tay!" needs recalibrating. But then I'm familiar on a personal level with the concept of arresting someone because they do not immediately roll over and jump through whatever hoop you are holding up.

If the scene needed to be controlled - limit access - then several oficers fell flat on their faces by not stopping the guy before he got in the middle of them. Once he was there the other officers fell flat on their face by not addressing and dealing with the intrusion into the scene. Makes me believe that was not a controlled-access scene, in spite of the dog wandering about looking for a bush/tree to pee on. (That is not how dogs behave/handlers work their dogs when casting for a scent.)

Bottom line - the arresting cop had better have his lies in order, and all the other officers lined up to tell the same lie, if he wants even a chance of making the charge stick. (And if everybody is telling the same story there is reason to believe it is a tory as opposed to a recitation of facts.)

stay safe.

Click to expand...

I'll link you to what I'm talking about and you link me to what you're talking about. Let's meet in the middle, haha.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?128419-A-clean-shoot

Grapeshot said:

Skidmark -

I've been away more than normal over the last few days, only to come back and find a couple of rat nests here and there. No insult intended to any user here, but people most of you have been here long enough to know better.

Bottom line on your request to not read first - it didn't work out that way

I do generally concur with your remarks in post #26 though.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...lice-killings-NYC/page6&p=2116939#post2116939

Click to expand...

Well this thread is pointless now, haha. I don't even remember what most of my edited posts say so I'm not sure how to correct my behavior!

The Truth said:

I'll link you to what I'm talking about and you link me to what you're talking about. Let's meet in the middle, haha.
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?128419-A-clean-shoot


Well this thread is pointless now, haha. I don't even remember what most of my edited posts say so I'm not sure how to correct my behavior!

Click to expand...

If not on topic for this thread, please start a new thread, bearing in mind that OCDO is not CopWatch.

PM being sent as to "remembering" - by itself it would have been minor - collectively, the sheer volume was the problem.

Considering the crime of killing cops....in this case it was clearly wrong. The cops did nothing to deserve it.
On the other hand, if this was an event like what they had back east a few years ago where two cops maced and beat a man in a wheel chair because he was protesting, and the two cops were shot...I can't say that it's right, but then I can't say that it's wrong, either.

but now it's to the point that cops nationwide are on alert. Because two "innocent" cops were executed. Now THAT is something I have a problem with. Do you think that people across the nation should take the very same precautions cops are taking then next time an old man is shot dead while sleeping in his bed? Or the next time a home is invaded without a warrant or PC/RAS at 12:30 am and the family is accosted by cops because their grass was too tall?

I betcha if "regular people" nationwide were to do that, act the same as the cops are now, cops would feel like a true minority....kinda like Tom Metzger telling jokes at the Apollo.

Logan 5 said:

Considering the crime of killing cops....in this case it was clearly wrong. The cops did nothing to deserve it.
On the other hand, if this was an event like what they had back east a few years ago where two cops maced and beat a man in a wheel chair because he was protesting, and the two cops were shot...I can't say that it's right, but then I can't say that it's wrong, either.

but now it's to the point that cops nationwide are on alert. Because two "innocent" cops were executed. Now THAT is something I have a problem with. Do you think that people across the nation should take the very same precautions cops are taking then next time an old man is shot dead while sleeping in his bed? Or the next time a home is invaded without a warrant or PC/RAS at 12:30 am and the family is accosted by cops because their grass was too tall?

I betcha if "regular people" nationwide were to do that, act the same as the cops are now, cops would feel like a true minority....kinda like Tom Metzger telling jokes at the Apollo.

Click to expand...

I will say it is wrong. We are not judge, jury, and executioners. We are not vigilantes.

There is much more known now than earlier regarding who shot the 2 officers - IMO it rises to the level of domestic terrorism.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/21/us/new-york-police-officers-shot/

Rather than use non-parallel "what ifs" as you have done, it would be better to ask if we the people should take the same precautions and/or awareness of potential domestic terrorists. That can be answered more effectively.

Grapeshot said:

I will say it is wrong. We are not judge, jury, and executioners. We are not vigilantes.

There is much more known now than earlier regarding who shot the 2 officers - IMO it rises to the level of domestic terrorism.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/21/us/new-york-police-officers-shot/

Rather than use non-parallel "what ifs" as you have done, it would be better to ask if we the people should take the same precautions and/or awareness of potential domestic terrorists. That can be answered more effectively.

Click to expand...

I don't think that the shooter had any intent on changing any political aspect in respect to the police. He was just a nut.

So domestic terrorism? Nah...just a nut! He just shot his GF...not an act of terrorism. I figure in his mind, if he shot some cops he could argue that he went nuts over the recent rash of shootings of his fellow blacks. Did not end that way but still its a viable theory.

Grapeshot said:

I will say it is wrong. We are not judge, jury, and executioners. We are not vigilantes.

There is much more known now than earlier regarding who shot the 2 officers - IMO it rises to the level of domestic terrorism.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/21/us/new-york-police-officers-shot/

Rather than use non-parallel "what ifs" as you have done, it would be better to ask if we the people should take the same precautions and/or awareness of potential domestic terrorists. That can be answered more effectively.

Click to expand...

ugh. Domestic terrorism? Well it's clear that brush has a broad-a$$ stroke. I guess that makes it more useful for wielders of the patriotic act/ndaa sword.
Though a vile and evil act, it sounded more like retribution to me than terrorism. For it to be terrorism his intent would of had to be to influence the policy or conduct of the government. I don't see any evidence of that.

twoskinsonemanns said:

ugh. Domestic terrorism? Well it's clear that brush has a broad-a$$ stroke. I guess that makes it more useful for wielders of the patriotic act/ndaa sword.
Though a vile and evil act, it sounded more like retribution to me than terrorism. For it to be terrorism his intent would of had to be to influence the policy or conduct of the government. I don't see any evidence of that.

Click to expand...

Let me repeat myself, this was a wrongful act. That out of the way IMO it was not terrorism, no political gain. It was a act of hate, and revenge, so I guess it could be considered a hate crime.

WalkingWolf said:

Let me repeat myself, this was a wrongful act. That out of the way IMO it was not terrorism, no political gain. It was a act of hate, and revenge, so I guess it could be considered a hate crime.

Click to expand...

Hate crimes are generally understood not as having been committed out of "hate" but as having been committed toward a member of a group with the intent to cause harm (such as fear) to the entire group. To the extent this crime was committed against two cops to "send a message to all cops" it would qualify as a hate crime in that generally understood meaning. I doubt, however, that many States have included peace officers as a protected group under hate/bias crime legislation. Rather, enhanced penalties typically attach to crimes against police officers because of their status as agents of the government under the theory that an attack on those agents is an attack on the government itself.

As for domestic terrorism, could be. Depends on the intent of the shooter. Since he didn't live to tell anyone his intent, we are left to guess in the absence of some note, manifesto, or information from someone who spoke with prior to the killing.

Ignoring his intent, the purpose of terrorism is generally to affect some policy change, or at least to cause fear among the targeted population. I think the shooter certain succeeded in causing some increased fear among cops. As you've repeated noted, being a cop is not one of the more dangerous jobs in this nation. Flying remains one of the safest methods of travel (ignoring civil rights violations by the TSA). At the height of the IRA terrorism, Northern Ireland was probably still safer than most major US cities. But a couple of statistically meaningless yet high profile incidents can certainly change perceptions and affect behavior.

It is not much of a stretch to suggest either a hate/bias type crime, or domestic terrorism as a suitable description of this crime, depending on the shooter's impossible to determine motivation.

Or, this could have been the work of a nut case with no political views regarding police brutality or government oppression and thus no agenda at all. Anyone really believe that?

Charles

History has shown that the colonist government were actually less oppressive at the time they had decided to revolt.

They had finally just had enough.

Arguing that there is no proof the state is more oppressive is a massive fallacious augments and irrelevant. It I also the argument of statist, one who is offering apologia for the state over the rights and liberties of the individual.

sudden valley gunner said:

History has shown that the colonist government were actually less oppressive at the time they had decided to revolt.

They had finally just had enough.

Arguing that there is no proof the state is more oppressive is a massive fallacious augments and irrelevant. It I also the argument of statist, one who is offering apologia for the state over the rights and liberties of the individual.

Click to expand...

Bingo!

How long until we've had enough?

sudden valley gunner said:

History has shown that the colonist government were actually less oppressive at the time they had decided to revolt.

They had finally just had enough.

Arguing that there is no proof the state is more oppressive is a massive fallacious augments and irrelevant. It I also the argument of statist, one who is offering apologia for the state over the rights and liberties of the individual.

Click to expand...

Asking for some evidence that the cause of criminal violence is what someone has suggested it is, is not statist. It is simply good inquiry. Everyone is susceptible to the dangers of group think.

If someone were to come on here and suggest/assert/claim that the violence in Missouri, LA, or NYC had something to do the relative intelligence of one race vs another, I expect there would be no end of challenges or requests to back up that assertion. Ditto if someone suggested that the violence was the result of guns being too readily available, or because we no longer had teacher lead prayers in schools, or because of the welfare state, etc, etc, etc. And in asking for evidence to back up that claim, nobody would be accused of anything untoward. But if someone asserts that recent violence is the result of "government oppression" nobody is allowed to ask for evidence to back up that claim? I do not expect that mentality among gun owners who independent, think for themselves, and are well educated.

And to suggest the colonists had "finally just had enough" is to either grossly over simplify the situation or to show forth a sad lack of historic knowledge. The colonists at Lexington and Concord were resisting a seizure of privately owned arms when shooting started. The Declaration of Independence makes pretty clear that the King sending Hessians to the colonies, along with his recent conduct in Canada were among tripping points that compelled the colonists to finally declare independence following a long train of longer standing abuses they articulated in that document.

Charles

utbagpiper said:

Asking for some evidence that the cause of criminal violence is what someone has suggested it is, is not statist. It is simply good inquiry. Everyone is susceptible to the dangers of group think.

If someone were to come on here and suggest/assert/claim that the violence in Missouri, LA, or NYC had something to do the relative intelligence of one race vs another, I expect there would be no end of challenges or requests to back up that assertion. Ditto if someone suggested that the violence was the result of guns being too readily available, or because we no longer had teacher lead prayers in schools, or because of the welfare state, etc, etc, etc. And in asking for evidence to back up that claim, nobody would be accused of anything untoward. But if someone asserts that recent violence is the result of "government oppression" nobody is allowed to ask for evidence to back up that claim? I do not expect that mentality among gun owners who independent, think for themselves, and are well educated.

And to suggest the colonists had "finally just had enough" is to either grossly over simplify the situation or to show forth a sad lack of historic knowledge. The colonists at Lexington and Concord were resisting a seizure of privately owned arms when shooting started. The Declaration of Independence makes pretty clear that the King sending Hessians to the colonies, along with his recent conduct in Canada were among tripping points that compelled the colonists to finally declare independence following a long train of longer standing abuses they articulated in that document.

Charles

Click to expand...

Oh so the protests were because police are usually good guys?

People flocked to Bundy Ranch because of the benevolence of the Federal government?

Don't start arguing history without even countering what I said. Taxes were lowered the British government involved itself less in the colonist lives than in England and historically. The Boston Massacre was instigated by colonist against cops in red coats doing their job. The seizure of arms by the Brits wasn't a random event but in response to the atmosphere of revolution in that colony already. Talk about oversimplying history or lack of knowledge. You seem to missing the point the people had finally had enough, the amount of abuse is irrelevant. Now counter that point since it is the main point, your red herrings aside.

Want to talk about long train of abuses? The US and the 50 states have gone way beyond those listed in the DOI.

Seems someone also missed the stated reason for this killing by this killer.

Just like some ignore Dorner's.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nypd+hoax


Take your pick.


Just another Psy-Op???

sudden valley gunner said:

Oh so the protests were because police are usually good guys?

Click to expand...

I've made no such assertion. I've simply asked for some evidence that the riots were caused by government being oppressive.

Which requires us to ask what is "oppressive?"

Is it oppressive to impose arrest, try, convict, and jail those who engage in strong-arm robberies? Is it oppressive to collect taxes? Was Washington out of line for putting down the Whiskey Rebellion?

sudden valley gunner said:

Want to talk about long train of abuses? The US and the 50 states have gone way beyond those listed in the DOI.

Click to expand...

You might note my post in which I argued that in many instances, personal liberties--especially for blacks (who just happen to be the racial demographic engaging in most rioting)--have greatly expanded in the last 20 to 60 years.

Are you really going to argue that the government is more oppressive toward blacks today than it was in 1959 with Jim Crow laws and legally enforced segregation? On other sites I've seen some ague that the welfare state has been far more damaging to blacks than was Jim Crow. But accepting welfare is voluntary while Jim Crow was mandatory.

I also pointed out that many of the areas of increased government power likely to bother us white gun owners (how many inner city, lower-income blacks do we have on this board) are probably not even on the radar of the inner city blacks rioting. Those of paying the bills might be mighty unhappy about obmacare, welfare, free cellphones, etc. Do you really think the recipients of those goodies are bothered by that expansion of government power? The power to take money from Peter and give to Paul rightly bothers Peter a lot, but rarely does Paul object.

No one has much bothered to counter those claims. Instead, they've attacked like a bunch of religious nuts being confronted by the heretical questions about whether God exists. It seems there are too many here who hold some positions so dogmatically that they are not capable of even entertaining any notion that those positions might be flawed.

How about this, what is the potential that the riots, and the shooting of an Asian and a Hispanic police officer by a black man might have at least as much to do with general racial unrest as with government oppression?

The media makes a point to mention every time a white cop (or white or even "white-Hispanic" citizen) shoots a black man. I had to go looking quite specifically to determine the races of the principals who are the subject of this thread.

Put in other terms. If tomorrow the US government immediately became a perfect example of libertarian or even minarchist philosophy, would the real causes of the riots and shootings in Missouri, LA, and NYC end? What do you think happens about 30 minutes after a libertarian/minarchist government doesn't send welfare checks into the inner cities?

By clinging dogmatically and unthinkingly to the line that "government oppression" is responsible for the riots and shootings, you have precluded other, possibly more powerful reasons for the violence at least among those who are making the news this month.

At least us religious nuts will generally concede that there is certain dogma beyond rational debate. I didn't realize that "government oppression is responsible for the violence in the news" was such a sacrosanct belief among some here.

Charles