Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: Police fail - humor

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Found this on failblog.wordpress.com


    Attached Images Attached Images
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    This is new training we are starting to receive. It is supposed to prevent the deaths of people who are not actually armed but appear to be a threat during a tense moment.

    Here is a video to demonstrate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hztH-GRUyec&feature=related

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    89

    Post imported post

    People do not listen even when you point a gun at them. Even when you are about to pull the trigger they still continue to do whatever they feel like.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    TheApostle wrote:
    People do not listen even when you point a gun at them. Even when you are about to pull the trigger they still continue to do whatever they feel like.
    This could be due to either they think the police have no authority, like to push the envelope, or are just crazy.

    Back in the day the police could do much more.

    Fire warning shots... shoot fleeing felons... But not any longer

    But today... they shoot only when necessary and still get raked over the coals by the media, the people, and the department.

    I think shooting fingers is the only viable option to keep everyone happy. But soon, this will be viewed as excessive.



  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I think shooting fingers is the only viable option to keep everyone happy. But soon, this will be viewed as excessive.
    QUIT POINTING AT ME!

    DAAAADDDD! He's pointing at me!!!

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    BobCav wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    I think shooting fingers is the only viable option to keep everyone happy. But soon, this will be viewed as excessive.
    QUIT POINTING AT ME!

    DAAAADDDD! He's pointing at me!!!
    Hey, at least you could be lucky it wasn't a chicken finger.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Burlington, Vermont, , USA
    Posts
    42

    Post imported post

    This is pretty great. At least they aren't suspending cops for doing this (yet) like they're doing to elementary schoolers. It is kind of sad that a few bullies in uniform ruin reasonable force for all of the other honorable LEOs out there.

    Rant over - it's a LEO playing cops and robbers! Toys R Us should use this pic as an ad campaign "I'll always be a toys r us kid!"

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    There's an old Robin Williams routine where he comments to the best of my memory:

    "In England you don't have guns and the police don't have guns so the police are like, "Stop, or I"ll say stop again.""

    I fear the US is getting to this point with a change to:

    "In the US the police have guns but are not allowed to use them. So they point the gun at the bad guy and say, "Stop, or I"ll point the gun even more emphatically without firing a shot and say stop again."

    Generally, I am more in favor of, "Stop. BANG Did I stutter?" Unfortunately, as glockrocker said, not all LEOs are able to judiciously use such force, leading to now unreasonable restriction, thereby creating a situation where the BGs act with much more impunity in our society than perhaps ever before.


    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Back in the day.. people had to worry about being shot and paid attention. They followed direction a little more often I suspect.

    But people know now.. the police cannot.. well strike that... the police are not allowed to shoot you without a real good reason. They may point that gun but the chances are that if they have NOT shot you already.. they probably will not.

    So just like in DC where they have a no pursuit policy... the bad guys know that all they have to do is drive away and they cannot be chased.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Back in the day.. people had to worry about being shot and paid attention. They followed direction a little more often I suspect.

    But people know now.. the police cannot.. well strike that... the police are not allowed to shoot you without a real good reason. They may point that gun but the chances are that if they have NOT shot you already.. they probably will not.

    So just like in DC where they have a no pursuit policy... the bad guys know that all they have to do is drive away and they cannot be chased.
    In Virginia police may not point a handgun at someone unless that person is a clear threat. Police are not exempted from the brandishing law unless somebody else is brandishing a firearm. For example the police officer that threatened Danbus in front of the bank in Norfolk was clearly violating the Commonwealth's brandishing law. No LEO 229 police do not have the authority to point a gun at somebody who is not a threat.


    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    In Virginia police may not point a handgun at someone unless that person is a clear threat. Police are not exempted from the brandishing law unless somebody else is brandishing a firearm. For example the police officer that threatened Danbus in front of the bank in Norfolk was clearly violating the Commonwealth's brandishing law. No LEO 229 police do not have the authority to point a gun at somebody who is not a threat.
    Really...!!!

    Who decides what a threat is and is not?

    Can you show me the law on this?

    Training in the academy on a felony traffic stop includes the drawing and pointing of weapons at a car with people inside. There is no way to know if the people inside are even a threat.

    So in your way of doing things... the people in the car must actually do something to show they are a threat so the cops must stand there unarmed and wait for the occupants to draw first blood.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    TheApostle wrote:
    People do not listen even when you point a gun at them. Even when you are about to pull the trigger they still continue to do whatever they feel like.
    Hmm... no they don't. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean, because I can tell you from past experience and very affirmatively that you are wrong.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    In Virginia police may not point a handgun at someone unless that person is a clear threat. Police are not exempted from the brandishing law unless somebody else is brandishing a firearm. For example the police officer that threatened Danbus in front of the bank in Norfolk was clearly violating the Commonwealth's brandishing law. No LEO 229 police do not have the authority to point a gun at somebody who is not a threat.
    Really...!!!

    Who decides what a threat is and is not?

    Can you show me the law on this?

    Training in the academy on a felony traffic stop includes the drawing and pointing of weapons at a car with people inside. There is no way to know if the people inside are even a threat.

    So in your way of doing things... the people in the car must actually do something to show they are a threat so the cops must stand there unarmed and wait for the occupants to draw first blood.
    Who decides? The jury. You might not like that answer, but that is the correct answer. It comes from the Commonwealth's use of justifiable and excusable manslaughter common law.

    The Law:

    § 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

    A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

    B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

    C. For purposes of this section, the word "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material. The word "ammunition," as used herein, shall mean a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.

    (Code 1950, § 18.1-69.2; 1968, c. 513; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, cc. 588, 599; 1992, c. 735; 2003, c. 976; 2005, c. 928.)

    Trainng in the Academy : Wrong again. Felony stop, maybe it is justified, it would depend on the circumstances.

    Don't get me wrong LEO 229. There are reasons to draw and point a firearm at somebody, whether you are a police officer or not. But it should not be part of any police officer's training to intentionally violate the law because they think they are above the law. Point your gun at somebody without a justifiable or excusable self defence reason and you have committed a class 1 misdemeanor. If you point the gun at grandma within 1000 feet of a school youhave committed a felony.

    P.S. There is a huge difference between drawing a weapon and having it at the ready and pointing it at somebodies head. In my mind one would usually be either excusable or justifiable for a police officer and the other would be a class1 misdemeanor or a felony depending on the proximity of a school.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    In Virginia police may not point a handgun at someone unless that person is a clear threat. Police are not exempted from the brandishing law unless somebody else is brandishing a firearm. For example the police officer that threatened Danbus in front of the bank in Norfolk was clearly violating the Commonwealth's brandishing law. No LEO 229 police do not have the authority to point a gun at somebody who is not a threat.
    Really...!!!

    Who decides what a threat is and is not?

    Can you show me the law on this?

    Training in the academy on a felony traffic stop includes the drawing and pointing of weapons at a car with people inside. There is no way to know if the people inside are even a threat.

    So in your way of doing things... the people in the car must actually do something to show they are a threat so the cops must stand there unarmed and wait for the occupants to draw first blood.
    Who decides? The jury. You might not like that answer, but that is the correct answer. It comes from the Commonwealth's use of justifiable and excusable manslaughter common law.

    The Law:

    § 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

    A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

    B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

    C. For purposes of this section, the word "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material. The word "ammunition," as used herein, shall mean a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.

    (Code 1950, § 18.1-69.2; 1968, c. 513; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, cc. 588, 599; 1992, c. 735; 2003, c. 976; 2005, c. 928.)

    Trainng in the Academy : Wrong again. Felony stop, maybe it is justified, it would depend on the circumstances.

    Don't get me wrong LEO 229. There are reasons to draw and point a firearm at somebody, whether you are a police officer or not. But it should not be part of any police officer's training to intentionally violate the law because they think they are above the law. Point your gun at somebody without a justifiable or excusable self defence reason and you have committed a class 1 misdemeanor. If you point the gun at grandma within 1000 feet of a school youhave committed a felony.

    P.S. There is a huge difference between drawing a weapon and having it at the ready and pointing it at somebodies head. In my mind one would usually be either excusable or justifiable for a police officer and the other would be a class1 misdemeanor or a felony depending on the proximity of a school.

    A jury? OK. I will be sure to check with them before I draw next time to be sure it fits the situation and is allowed.

    Did you happen to see the line in section B?

    B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

    It clearly prevents a LEO from being sued civilly for causing any injury or death of another who he has reason to believe is holding anything similar to a gun that would obviously induce fear.

    This is because anyone can sue anyone for anything. It you look like your holding a gun and do something taken to be a threat...you can justifiably be shot!!

    You can try to have a LEO charged with pointing a gun at you but would be hard pressed to actually get any magistrate to give you a warrant.

    Pointing a gun at someone is not something cops do lightly. They do it when they believe there is a threat that may need to be handled immediately. Just the act of drawing and keeping it at the low ready is the same as pointing it at the person. It is all brandishing just the same.

    I doubt any jury would even convict a LEO for drawing his weapon if he has any valid reason to do so. It is not hard to justify drawing your gun with all that happens in the world now.

    In a felony vehicle stop.... Be it.. a pursuit, stolen auto, or bank robbery suspect.... there is an expectation of danger. History has shown that in all these situations the police have been shot at.

    So there is no need to wait for the bad guy to pull a gun first and prove he is a danger.

    You said "In Virginia police may not point a handgun at someone unless that person is a clear threat."

    But whenyou say "clear threat..." itmeans the person has to be armed and have some obvious type of intent to hurt you.

    In the case of Danbus... he was armed but not really a threat. But there are people that go out armed and hurt people. Would a jury convict the police for drawing on him. I doubt it!! If the officersdid not draw... many citizens would question WHY NOT!!

    I am happy that you do not set the rules for the state because you are an officer safety risk.



    http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...sponse_to.html


    • Justice recommendation: Police should require officers to report any instance when they unholster their gun.
    City response: The city disagrees. Officers already are properly trained on when it is appropriate to brandish firearms. If they are required to report every time they unholster a gun, it would have a “chilling effect” that would adversely affect officer safety.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    Thundar wrote:
    In Virginia police may not point a handgun at someone unless that person is a clear threat. Police are not exempted from the brandishing law unless somebody else is brandishing a firearm. For example the police officer that threatened Danbus in front of the bank in Norfolk was clearly violating the Commonwealth's brandishing law. No LEO 229 police do not have the authority to point a gun at somebody who is not a threat.
    Really...!!!

    Who decides what a threat is and is not?

    Can you show me the law on this?

    Training in the academy on a felony traffic stop includes the drawing and pointing of weapons at a car with people inside. There is no way to know if the people inside are even a threat.

    So in your way of doing things... the people in the car must actually do something to show they are a threat so the cops must stand there unarmed and wait for the occupants to draw first blood.
    Who decides? The jury. You might not like that answer, but that is the correct answer. It comes from the Commonwealth's use of justifiable and excusable manslaughter common law.

    The Law:

    § 18.2-282. Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearance; penalty.

    A. It shall be unlawful for any person to point, hold or brandish any firearm or any air or gas operated weapon or any object similar in appearance, whether capable of being fired or not, in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured. However, this section shall not apply to any person engaged in excusable or justifiable self-defense. Persons violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor or, if the violation occurs upon any public, private or religious elementary, middle or high school, including buildings and grounds or upon public property within 1,000 feet of such school property, he shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony.

    B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

    C. For purposes of this section, the word "firearm" means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material. The word "ammunition," as used herein, shall mean a cartridge, pellet, ball, missile or projectile adapted for use in a firearm.

    (Code 1950, § 18.1-69.2; 1968, c. 513; 1975, cc. 14, 15; 1990, cc. 588, 599; 1992, c. 735; 2003, c. 976; 2005, c. 928.)

    Trainng in the Academy : Wrong again. Felony stop, maybe it is justified, it would depend on the circumstances.

    Don't get me wrong LEO 229. There are reasons to draw and point a firearm at somebody, whether you are a police officer or not. But it should not be part of any police officer's training to intentionally violate the law because they think they are above the law. Point your gun at somebody without a justifiable or excusable self defence reason and you have committed a class 1 misdemeanor. If you point the gun at grandma within 1000 feet of a school youhave committed a felony.

    P.S. There is a huge difference between drawing a weapon and having it at the ready and pointing it at somebodies head. In my mind one would usually be either excusable or justifiable for a police officer and the other would be a class1 misdemeanor or a felony depending on the proximity of a school.

    A jury? OK. I will be sure to check with them before I draw next time to be sure it fits the situation and is allowed.

    Did you happen to see the line in section B?

    B. Any police officer in the performance of his duty, in making an arrest under the provisions of this section, shall not be civilly liable in damages for injuries or death resulting to the person being arrested if he had reason to believe that the person being arrested was pointing, holding, or brandishing such firearm or air or gas operated weapon, or object that was similar in appearance, with intent to induce fear in the mind of another.

    It clearly prevents a LEO from being sued civilly for causing any injury or death of another who he has reason to believe is holding anything similar to a gun that would obviously induce fear.

    This is because anyone can sue anyone for anything. It you look like your holding a gun and do something taken to be a threat...you can justifiably be shot!!

    You can try to have a LEO charged with pointing a gun at you but would be hard pressed to actually get any magistrate to give you a warrant.

    Pointing a gun at someone is not something cops do lightly. They do it when they believe there is a threat that may need to be handled immediately. Just the act of drawing and keeping it at the low ready is the same as pointing it at the person. It is all brandishing just the same.

    I doubt any jury would even convict a LEO for drawing his weapon if he has any valid reason to do so. It is not hard to justify drawing your gun with all that happens in the world now.

    In a felony vehicle stop.... Be it.. a pursuit, stolen auto, or bank robbery suspect.... there is an expectation of danger. History has shown that in all these situations the police have been shot at.

    So there is no need to wait for the bad guy to pull a gun first and prove he is a danger.

    You said "In Virginia police may not point a handgun at someone unless that person is a clear threat."

    But whenyou say "clear threat..." itmeans the person has to be armed and have some obvious type of intent to hurt you.

    In the case of Danbus... he was armed but not really a threat. But there are people that go out armed and hurt people. Would a jury convict the police for drawing on him. I doubt it!! If the officersdid not draw... many citizens would question WHY NOT!!

    I am happy that you do not set the rules for the state because you are an officer safety risk.



    http://www.enquirer.com/editions/200...sponse_to.html


    • Justice recommendation: Police should require officers to report any instance when they unholster their gun.
    City response: The city disagrees. Officers already are properly trained on when it is appropriate to brandish firearms. If they are required to report every time they unholster a gun, it would have a “chilling effect” that would adversely affect officer safety.

    WTF LEO,

    Look into justifiable and excusable in common law. The bottom line isyou cannot shoot somebody because your spider man senses are tingling. Don't twist clear into A, B, C to fit your argument.

    Funny argument you have about magistrates not issuing a warrant. Not that a police officer pointing a gun at somebodies head is not a crime, but that the magistrate would let you get away with it. If the elements of a crime are sworn or attested to and the person that committed the act is clearly identified, then the honest magistrate is compelled to act. Many magistrates are fiercely independent of the police and take their jobs seriously. There are some that are rubber stamps, and those should be dismissed for incompetence or worse.

    I don't have any problem with a LEO drawing his firearm. I would not, under most circumstances consider that brandishing. There is a huge difference between a police officer drawing his weapon and a police officer pointing a weapon at your head (Like what happened to Danbus).

    Yes I did read Section B of the brandishing code. It certainlydoes not give LEOs a blanket authority to brandish a firearm. It simply relieves a LEO of criminal or civil liability if in the act of arresting somebody else that is brandishing, they shoot that person. Section B does clearlyshow legislative intent that asection A criminal act should apply to a police officer. Section B shows the legislatures clear evaluation of the Police Officer in society with respect to this very law and only exempted them when somebody else is brandishing.

    Officer Safety Risk??Pointing a gun ata human being that is not a clear threat is a human being safety risk.Officers make tragic mistakes. They kill people by accident.This is not cop bashing, just a tragic fact. A police officershould not compela personthatis not a threat to endure that risk. To do so is a crime. LEOs must understand that.

    Officer Safety Risk??? If you think that making the police operate within the confines of the law is an officer safety risk then I have a pair of tall black boots you can wear.

    You are wrongthat I do not set the rules. I am a rule setter as part of the Commonwealth's jury pool that determines the reasonableness of an officers actions. Point a gun at Grandmas head, without a justifiable or excusable reason and I vote guilty, even if it was close to a school and the LEOwould be an ex LEO convicted felon. The law is clear. Police are not above the law.



    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    WTF LEO,

    Look into justifiable and excusable in common law. The bottom line isyou cannot shoot somebody because your spider man senses are tingling. Don't twist clear into A, B, C to fit your argument.

    Funny argument you have about magistrates not issuing a warrant. Not that a police officer pointing a gun at somebodies head is not a crime, but that the magistrate would let you get away with it. If the elements of a crime are sworn or attested to and the person that committed the act is clearly identified, then the honest magistrate is compelled to act. Many magistrates are fiercely independent of the police and take their jobs seriously. There are some that are rubber stamps, and those should be dismissed for incompetence or worse.

    I don't have any problem with a LEO drawing his firearm. I would not, under most circumstances consider that brandishing. There is a huge difference between a police officer drawing his weapon and a police officer pointing a weapon at your head (Like what happened to Danbus).

    Yes I did read Section B of the brandishing code. It certainlydoes not give LEOs a blanket authority to brandish a firearm. It simply relieves a LEO of criminal or civil liability if in the act of arresting somebody else that is brandishing, they shoot that person. Section B does clearlyshow legislative intent that asection A criminal act should apply to a police officer. Section B shows the legislatures clear evaluation of the Police Officer in society with respect to this very law and only exempted them when somebody else is brandishing.

    Officer Safety Risk??Pointing a gun ata human being that is not a clear threat is a human being safety risk.Officers make tragic mistakes. They kill people by accident.This is not cop bashing, just a tragic fact. A police officershould not compela personthatis not a threat to endure that risk. To do so is a crime. LEOs must understand that.

    Officer Safety Risk??? If you think that making the police operate within the confines of the law is an officer safety risk then I have a pair of tall black boots you can wear.

    You are wrongthat I do not set the rules. I am a rule setter as part of the Commonwealth's jury pool that determines the reasonableness of an officers actions. Point a gun at Grandmas head, without a justifiable or excusable reason and I vote guilty, even if it was close to a school and the LEOwould be an ex LEO convicted felon. The law is clear. Police are not above the law.
    I think you have taken the wrong road and got it all wrong.

    Obviously, pointing your gun at a naked man with empty handsor a 5 year old child would be a bit much.Both can clearly be viewed as non-threatening.

    But many situations a LEO can easily articulate as a possible threat and be justified in drawing his gun.

    The simple act of him walking up and placing his hand on his gun is brandishing by state code.

    Are yousaying that the LEO should bearrested for brandishing if there is no "clear and present danger" at that moment? A moment where the LEO may believe something funny is about to happen and gets ready to draw.....

    Once again.... what is a "clear threat" to you??

  17. #17
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    I think you have taken the wrong road and got it all wrong.

    Obviously, pointing your gun at a naked man with empty handsor a 5 year old child would be a bit much.Both can clearly be viewed as non-threatening.

    But many situations a LEO can easily articulate as a possible threat and be justified in drawing his gun.

    The simple act of him walking up and placing his hand on his gun is brandishing by state code.

    Are yousaying that the LEO should bearrested for brandishing if there is no "clear and present danger" at that moment? A moment where the LEO may believe something funny is about to happen and gets ready to draw.....

    Once again.... what is a "clear threat" to you??
    LEO 229, I think you need to back up and understand the limitations that society places upon you.

    Your original statement about pointing a firearm at citizens was beyond the pale. The practice you describe is legally and morally unjustified. Legally police are not above the brandishing law. You know this and try to refute that unpleasant (to you) factwith weak hypotheticals, an assertion that you can get away with it because magistrates won't issue warrants and accusations ofharming officer safety.Morally, when you assert that you, unlike a citizen, can endanger citizens to enhance your own safety, you advocate a cowardly, elitist and selfish practice.

    I think that you need to read the brandishing code again. An act such as placing your hand on your firearm is not brandishing. A police officer drawing his firearm is not IMHObrandishing. Pointing a firearm at the head of a victim absent a clear threat is IMHO brandishing.

    Go ahead and point the gun at grandma's head. When she has a heart attack or when you have a negligent discharge that is just the way the cookie crumbles. After all you can easily articulate a possible threat. It would go something like this:

    "Well judge old ladies often knit. She has long hair and might have been concealing a knitting needle in her hair.I am sorry she had aheart attack, but I point guns at peoples heads to enhance my own safety. I am a police officer after all."

    That is a lot different than a clear threat such as:

    "She left the bar in a belligerent manner. When I told her to stop she said you'll be sorry copper and reached into her purse. I drew my firearm and ordered her to drop the purse. I am sorry she had a heart attack but the threat was clear and I reacted to it."





    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  18. #18
    Regular Member thnycav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Windsor VA, ,
    Posts
    305

    Post imported post

    I think the Monday morning quarterbacks should have to go though the shot no shot simulators and see how hard it is to be able to make a decision under pressure. At least with the simulators the worst thing that can happen is a bruised ego, not like the real thing where a life can be held in the balance.

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Are we maybe getting sideways on a hand on the gun, gun drawn at the LEO's side, low ready and actually aimed at the citizen distinction? I'm posing that as a question as I am not sure that is the case, however, it seems to me that may be part of the issue.

    While LEO229 and I don't always see eye to eye, I also respect him and don't think he is someone to recklessly or arrogantly subrogate citizen's rights without actual justified concern of personal safety.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    LEO 229, I think you need to back up and understand the limitations that society places upon you.

    Your original statement about pointing a firearm at citizens was beyond the pale. The practice you describe is legally and morally unjustified. Legally police are not above the brandishing law. You know this and try to refute that unpleasant (to you) factwith weak hypotheticals, an assertion that you can get away with it because magistrates won't issue warrants and accusations ofharming officer safety.Morally, when you assert that you, unlike a citizen, can endanger citizens to enhance your own safety, you advocate a cowardly, elitist and selfish practice.

    I think that you need to read the brandishing code again. An act such as placing your hand on your firearm is not brandishing. A police officer drawing his firearm is not IMHObrandishing. Pointing a firearm at the head of a victim absent a clear threat is IMHO brandishing.

    Go ahead and point the gun at grandma's head. When she has a heart attack or when you have a negligent discharge that is just the way the cookie crumbles. After all you can easily articulate a possible threat. It would go something like this:

    "Well judge old ladies often knit. She has long hair and might have been concealing a knitting needle in her hair.I am sorry she had aheart attack, but I point guns at peoples heads to enhance my own safety. I am a police officer after all."

    That is a lot different than a clear threat such as:

    "She left the bar in a belligerent manner. When I told her to stop she said you'll be sorry copper and reached into her purse. I drew my firearm and ordered her to drop the purse. I am sorry she had a heart attack but the threat was clear and I reacted to it."
    You sir... need to read the code again.

    You would be arrested for brandishing if you hold the grip of your gun in your holster or even more so when draw it and it was not justified. :X

    This is not a "moral" issue at all. It is about what the police are permitted to do in the course of their duties. It is notsomething you do casually. There is going to be a good reason for drawing down on a suspect.

    But you.... simply cannot fathom the idea that this is allowed.

    You want to use the 'ol"give grandma a heart attack" or"accidental discharge" to prove why it should not happen.

    If grandma is a threat and croaks at the sight of a gun... so be it.Does this happen to everyone. No! I do not know that this has EVER happened.

    Accidental discharges do not always happen either.On very rare occasions it has happened. But that is the price of doing business. You can be as safe as possible but to be truly safe.. you must not have a gun at all.

    Out of the 900,000 cops if only 1% drew there gun daily and pointed it at a suspect you have 9,000 cops each day. How many ADs did we have today?

    OK... out of the first 130 days of the year we would have had 270,000 cops draw their guns so far this year.... how many ADs did we have so far this year?

    Please count the number and let me know. I would love to see how you can justify not pointing a gun because a AD could happen.

    You may not like the idea of a cop pointing his gun in the direction of someone who "may" be a danger... but you have that luxury...you can sit back behind your computer and say how bad it is. But I think you also carry a gun around in public.

    Why??!!! People are not dangerous now are they. The police do not need to point guns and have the upper hand and you do not need to go out armed.

    I really do not feel like discussing this with you any further since you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.


  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Are we maybe getting sideways on a hand on the gun, gun drawn at the LEO's side, low ready and actually aimed at the citizen distinction? I'm posing that as a question as I am not sure that is the case, however, it seems to me that may be part of the issue.

    While LEO229 and I don't always see eye to eye, I also respect him and don't think he is someone to recklessly or arrogantly subrogate citizen's rights without actual justified concern of personal safety.
    No cop want to shoot another person. But he sure does want the upper hand if a gun fight is started.

    The bad guy knows what he is going to do and can plan his attack. The LEO will have to react to it.

    This comes down to fractions of a second and having your gun out shaves off that time and give the LEO the edge to shoot first.

    I still have not seen anyone post what they feel is an appropriate time to draw.

    Damn!! I wish I had a shoot/don't shoot machine to put these hard heads on. Then they would see why the gun needs to be out early.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    thnycav wrote:
    I think the Monday morning quarterbacks should have to go though the shot no shot simulators and see how hard it is to be able to make a decision under pressure. At least with the simulators the worst thing that can happen is a bruised ego, not like the real thing where a life can be held in the balance.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homi...circumstantial

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Are we maybe getting sideways on a hand on the gun, gun drawn at the LEO's side, low ready and actually aimed at the citizen distinction? I'm posing that as a question as I am not sure that is the case, however, it seems to me that may be part of the issue.

    While LEO229 and I don't always see eye to eye, I also respect him and don't think he is someone to recklessly or arrogantly subrogate citizen's rights without actual justified concern of personal safety.
    No cop want to shoot another person. But he sure does want the upper hand if a gun fight is started.

    The bad guy knows what he is going to do and can plan his attack. The LEO will have to react to it.

    This comes down to fractions of a second and having your gun out shaves off that time and give the LEO the edge to shoot first.

    I still have not seen anyone post what they feel is an appropriate time to draw.

    Damn!! I wish I had a shoot/don't shoot machine to put these hard heads on. Then they would see why the gun needs to be out early.
    Um, ok. I don't generally disagree with what you said here, but I do not understand why you quoted me to post it. I'm not seeing how your comments here are a response to my post that you quoted. Color me confused ....
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Are we maybe getting sideways on a hand on the gun, gun drawn at the LEO's side, low ready and actually aimed at the citizen distinction? I'm posing that as a question as I am not sure that is the case, however, it seems to me that may be part of the issue.

    While LEO229 and I don't always see eye to eye, I also respect him and don't think he is someone to recklessly or arrogantly subrogate citizen's rights without actual justified concern of personal safety.
    No cop want to shoot another person. But he sure does want the upper hand if a gun fight is started.

    The bad guy knows what he is going to do and can plan his attack. The LEO will have to react to it.

    This comes down to fractions of a second and having your gun out shaves off that time and give the LEO the edge to shoot first.

    I still have not seen anyone post what they feel is an appropriate time to draw.

    Damn!! I wish I had a shoot/don't shoot machine to put these hard heads on. Then they would see why the gun needs to be out early.
    Um, ok. I don't generally disagree with what you said here, but I do not understand why you quoted me to post it. I'm not seeing how your comments here are a response to my post that you quoted. Color me confused ....
    This was in relation to the last part of what you said.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    LEO 229 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    LEO 229 wrote:
    deepdiver wrote:
    Are we maybe getting sideways on a hand on the gun, gun drawn at the LEO's side, low ready and actually aimed at the citizen distinction? I'm posing that as a question as I am not sure that is the case, however, it seems to me that may be part of the issue.

    While LEO229 and I don't always see eye to eye, I also respect him and don't think he is someone to recklessly or arrogantly subrogate citizen's rights without actual justified concern of personal safety.
    No cop want to shoot another person. But he sure does want the upper hand if a gun fight is started.

    The bad guy knows what he is going to do and can plan his attack. The LEO will have to react to it.

    This comes down to fractions of a second and having your gun out shaves off that time and give the LEO the edge to shoot first.

    I still have not seen anyone post what they feel is an appropriate time to draw.

    Damn!! I wish I had a shoot/don't shoot machine to put these hard heads on. Then they would see why the gun needs to be out early.
    Um, ok. I don't generally disagree with what you said here, but I do not understand why you quoted me to post it. I'm not seeing how your comments here are a response to my post that you quoted. Color me confused ....
    This was in relation to the last part of what you said.
    Ah, gotcha. I was trying to make it fit with the entirety of my comments. Confusion resolved.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •