• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Recent experience with local LEOs

SP101

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
231
Location
somewhere, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

I missed your reason before I posted, but after reading YOUR reason, I can see that you have a WILD imagination. How about just diving for the RPG launcher first? I'm sure the childs parents would be grateful.

I can see alot more scenarios happening before this one, but I myself would take the grenade hit before I would point a weapon at a 3 yr old.
 

Rob P.

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
19
Location
, ,
imported post

SP101 wrote:
I must be missing something here.

Are you saying a LEO canpoint his weapon at a 3 yr old child because the STATE "authorizes" it?

I was asking in what situation would this be "required".

In any situation where the officer in question can articulate a sound reason for doing so. Such as when there is a specific danger to the police or the public at large.

In addition to my scenario above, a 3 yr old can get a loaded gun and think it's a toy. The kid can then point said gun at someone and say "bang" while pulling the trigger. This unfortunately happens all the time.

If a cop were to come upon such a scene, he is OBLIGATED and REQUIRED to draw his weapon and possibly shoot the kid with a gun to protectpotential innocent victims from being shot. That's his job and why he gets paid the big bucks.

Do not get too wrapped up in the "but he's only 3" argument. It's an argument based on emotion and not reason. If a 3 yr old poses a danger to the public LEO is "authorized" to kill him so long as LEO can articulate a sound basis for doing so. IF LEO is authorized to use deadly force, then any force used which is less than that is also authorized.

I would not want to be LEO who had to make such a choice. But then I am not LEO nor do I make the big bucks.
 

para_org

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
392
Location
, ,
imported post

It happens all the time you say ?

Care to tell us how often it happens ?
 

SP101

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
231
Location
somewhere, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

:what:It would make more sense to shoot the person who left the loaded gun laying around for the 3 yr old to find.

Or, here's a thought, EVACUATE THE AREA of innocent people and use a ballistic sheild to approach the 3 yr old. I just don't understand why all of your scenarios end in the killing of the child.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Rob P. wrote:
The statute "authorizes" their duties as police officers. If the State "authorizes" someone to do something then they cannot be held liable if they do it. If the State grants you power you have the right, obligation, & ability to lawfully use it without fear of liability. Just as if a peace officer deputized you would exempt you from carrying a loaded firearm in an incorporated area or school zone.

Think of it this way.... Murder is the unauthorized killing of a person (shorthand version). Because the State sanctions the death penalty, anyone put to death after trial and conviction cannot have been murdered because their death was "authorized" by the state. Same deal here with peace officers - they are "authorized" to perform their duties as LEO. Hence, certain statutes do not apply to them in the normal course of the their jobs even without a specific exemption.
You say, "the statute authorizes their duties as police officers." No, it does not; it extends their authority outside of their jurisdiction. It does not say, 'anything an officer does on duty is exempt from prosecution.' If you think it does, then just look at the multitude of criminal and civil cases against officers in this state.

Your example of the death penalty is a good one: it is expressly exempted by law. However, just because one exception exists, does not authorize random execution of traffic violators. Cops are not above the law (although some of them act like they are).

You're still not providing proof...

Let me give you an example of what I need to see to accept your claim:

Claim - police are exempt from CA penal code 12031 - the laws regarding carrying loaded firearms in incorporated areas.

Proof
: CA penal code 12031(b)(1):
12031(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Peace officers listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably retired...
There you have a law, and then a clause saying, "by the way, this doesn't apply to LEOs." Why do you think any other law wouldn't need a similar exception?
 

Rob P.

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2007
Messages
19
Location
, ,
imported post

Ok, FWIW I think that all the negative comments are basically trolling to keep my wheels spinning.

FACT: Lots of kids die each year from someone getting their hands on negligently stored handguns. This isn't my version of the truth, it's THE truth and it's the basis for the all those gun control laws we have as well as the laws which require toy guns to be any color but black and/or have an orange tip. Deny it all you want to but you only prove you're an idiot if you try. I shoiuldn't have to even be pointing this out buttrolls just egg on the discussion based on outlandish "prove it" comments.

Secondly, all the suggestions on alternative things to try are nice. However, when seconds count you don't want to be trying to radio for assistance to evacuate the target zone or waiting on a bulletproof shield to arrive at hte scene. If you delay innocent people can be killed and it's LEO's job to prevent that. So, make your choice; the kid or some unsuspecting bystander across the street. Maybe that bystander is a newborn infant in a crib who was just brought home from the hospital. Who wins? Whose life is more important? Age is irrelevant when split seconds determine who lives or dies. Choose.

Last (and I do mean LAST because I won't comment again) those who can't make a decison on whether to shoot or not because "it's just a kid" should re-examine their need and desire to carry a firearm. Kids kill people when they get their hands on loaded guns. Indecision in those situations where a child has a real gun instead of a toy means someone gets a visit to the hurt locker or morgue. I choose to live.

END OF DISCUSSON.
 

sccrref

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
741
Location
Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
imported post

SP101 wrote:
:what:It would make more sense to shoot the person who left the loaded gun laying around for the 3 yr old to find.

Or, here's a thought, EVACUATE THE AREA of innocent people and use a ballistic sheild to approach the 3 yr old. I just don't understand why all of your scenarios end in the killing of the child.
Do not forget to add in the helicopter.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Rob P. wrote:
f a cop were to come upon such a scene, he is OBLIGATED and REQUIRED to draw his weapon and possibly shoot the kid with a gun to protectpotential innocent victims from being shot. That's his job and why he gets paid the big bucks.
You do have a wild imagination. You think the LEOs are OBLIGATED or REQUIRED to protect you? Now, most of them WILL do just that, and feel morally obligated, but there is no law (that I'm aware of) saying they have to prevent a crime.

They do have to arrest the person after you've been killed, but by then I think you'll be too pissed off to care.
 

para_org

Regular Member
Joined
May 11, 2007
Messages
392
Location
, ,
imported post

Rob P. wrote:
Ok, FWIW I think that all the negative comments are basically trolling to keep my wheels spinning.

FACT: Lots of kids die each year from someone getting their hands on negligently stored handguns. This isn't my version of the truth, it's THE truth and it's the basis for the all those gun control laws we have as well as the laws which require toy guns to be any color but black and/or have an orange tip. Deny it all you want to but you only prove you're an idiot if you try. I shoiuldn't have to even be pointing this out buttrolls just egg on the discussion based on outlandish "prove it" comments.

Secondly, all the suggestions on alternative things to try are nice. However, when seconds count you don't want to be trying to radio for assistance to evacuate the target zone or waiting on a bulletproof shield to arrive at hte scene. If you delay innocent people can be killed and it's LEO's job to prevent that. So, make your choice; the kid or some unsuspecting bystander across the street. Maybe that bystander is a newborn infant in a crib who was just brought home from the hospital. Who wins? Whose life is more important? Age is irrelevant when split seconds determine who lives or dies. Choose.

Last (and I do mean LAST because I won't comment again) those who can't make a decison on whether to shoot or not because "it's just a kid" should re-examine their need and desire to carry a firearm. Kids kill people when they get their hands on loaded guns. Indecision in those situations where a child has a real gun instead of a toy means someone gets a visit to the hurt locker or morgue. I choose to live.

END OF DISCUSSON.
A whole lot of 'silver coated cow droppings". I asked you to back your statements up, and alas you could not except with the above. Sorry, but here are some real facts;

(One statistic that basically refutes much if not basically ALL of what you are saying. ->)

The (average) number of under 5 year olds that are killed with firearms each year is only about 20. AND most kids play with kids their own ages, which of course infers that some number smaller than 20 is the number of kids, 5 or under, that shoot one another.

NOW...put that in perspective with the statistic that 100 such aged kids die from drownings int he bathtub each year. (i.e. Bathing is another activity that should have adult interaction, much like access to weapons.)

Finally this last statistic; the same age group experiences another 40 such drownings in 5 gallon buckets each year/


Sorry if YOU feel you are being picked on, but no one here put such b.s. into your mouth except YOU.

In summary; you are expecting the folks here to believe what you say like: "FACT: Lots of kids die each year from someone getting their hands on negligently stored handguns. " AFTER bringing up "...3 year old(s).." in earlier messages here in this thread. <- Silver coated cow droppings.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
imported post

Rob P. wrote:
Ok, FWIW I think that all the negative comments are basically trolling to keep my wheels spinning.

END OF DISCUSSON
I didn't see any 'trolling' in this thread. Maybe you're too defensive... lighten up... just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they're out to 'troll' you.

Don't get scared off so easily. I still want to see some proof to support your claim that LEOs are allowed to draw their guns in situations that non-LEOs can't. If you can't back it up, no big deal. It's OK to be wrong.
 

SP101

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
231
Location
somewhere, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

Rob P. wrote:
....However, when seconds count you don't want to be trying to radio for assistance to evacuate the target zone or waiting on a bulletproof shield to arrive at hte scene. If you delay innocent people can be killed and it's LEO's job to prevent that. So, make your choice; the kid or some unsuspecting bystander across the street.....
:shock:Yes, then by all means, shoot the kid first. After all, you may save another from being shot byan empty gun.

Next time you do a traffic stop for a busted taillight, shoot the driver because he may not have a drivers license, and in the future he may run over someone crossing the street. I'd hate to be the LEO that didn't kill that driver for what he MAY have done in the future.

I really hope you are like you keep stating, NOT a LEO. If you were, there would be alot of dead innocent people around, of all ages.
 

Tomahawk

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2006
Messages
5,117
Location
4 hours south of HankT, ,
imported post

Rob P. wrote:
END OF DISCUSSON.

Doesn't look like it from here.

argue2.gif
 
Top