Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 31

Thread: Gun-happy SoCal police use excessive force to claim Reggie Doucet's life

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Gun-happy SoCal police use excessive force to claim Reggie Doucet's life

    Was Mr. Doucet without guilt in this matter, which occurered around 3:30 am? Oh, heck no. In fact he was running around, naked at that, attacking officers, injuring two. Still, if he was naked it was clear he wasn't carrying.

    How about tasers, folks? Was there at any attempt at using less than lethal force before they took a man's life? I'm not saying whether they were wrong, here, as I don't know how heated the confrontation got. I do know he attempted to take one of the officer's guns, and that tasers are an effective means of taking someone down without killing them. They're used all the time.

    If he was that violent, why were they not used at the outset? Perhaps LA police don't carry tasers.

    I don't know. It sure raises some questions, however, particularly as the shooting officer was a rookie on the force.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    "The suspect repeatedly punched both officers in the face and head and at one point tried to take one of the officer's guns," the LAPD statement said.
    I've seen it repeatedly posted here that a BG attempting to take your gun (especially after he has already assaulted you or others) warrants the reasonable belief that you are in grave danger. I'd shoot the guy. The police should have no less right to defend themselves than we do.

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I've seen it repeatedly posted here that a BG attempting to take your gun (especially after he has already assaulted you or others) warrants the reasonable belief that you are in grave danger. I'd shoot the guy. The police should have no less right to defend themselves than we do.
    Agreed, as long as we have the same treatment from the "Justice" system an officer would.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Jefferson City, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    396
    My uncle was CHP and when I was young I asked him if he ever had to pull out his gun. He said he never had to but came close one time. He was training a rookie and they pulled over a very large and strong drunk guy on a very rainy night. In making the arrest the man fought them and was pretty much whipping the both of them. He got the rookie's head down into a water filled ditch and was drowning him. My uncle couldn't get him off and was beating him with a club as hard as he could. He said he was scared, because he thought the young officer might die and he was also scared that he might have to shoot this unarmed man which he was considering doing. Luckily, he got the guy off and made the arrest without shooting or killing him but he pretty much said it just about got to that point.

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    How about tasers, folks? Was there at any attempt at using less than lethal force before they took a man's life?
    Doncha know? LA cops use tasers as compliance assurance devices. They would never risk even a beating if they could just shoot someone. Which begs the question, of course, what the hell we train them for, since a citizen could do the same thing. There is nothing in place to non-lethally subdue violent but nonlethal perpetrators, which seems like one of the few reasons for police to even exist. If we're just going to shoot everyone who makes a scene, why need police? Armed citizens could fill that roll just fine.

    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I've seen it repeatedly posted here that a BG attempting to take your gun (especially after he has already assaulted you or others) warrants the reasonable belief that you are in grave danger. I'd shoot the guy. The police should have no less right to defend themselves than we do.
    This is a disingenuous argument. A police officer has a multitude of means at his disposal that a citizen may not have. He has alternate weapons, restraint training, and backup. And he initiates confrontation.

    The police officer should be subject to greater scrutiny. Was the gun grab easily repelled, or was it an ongoing life-or-death struggle until the officer managed to get a shot off? This makes all the difference in my mind.

    The difference is that police choose to initiate confrontations armed with handguns. This is exactly the reason I advocate disarmed police. What reason does the cop have for a gun against a naked dude? So he can use its presence as an excuse to claim potentially lethal force on the part of the naked guy in order to shoot him? Wouldn't it be sufficient to approach the naked dude with taser, OC, handcuffs, backup, so as to prevent anything lethal from being brought into play? Shouldn't the object of these professionals be to preserve life?

    Its ridiculous to expect that level of training and preparedness from Joe Blow, but not from Frank Policeman.

    Now, before people respond, "yeah well what reason have YOU for carrying a gun? HUH??" I would point out that I do not carry a gun in my professional capacity. I carry it in my daily life for unknown and unpredictable attempts to victimize my person. In the same way that nobody would blink twice at an insane asylum guard being prohibited (as a condition of employment) from bringing guns into sterile areas, it's reasonable to ask why police bring firearms into situations where they are never in a million years going to be needed, like when apprehending a naked dude.

    I mean, even if we assume police need to generally be armed to defend against the unpredictable (an argument I by no means accept), if the officer cared, a life could have been saved by having a nearby officer hold his lethal implements before moving in to subdue this character, since he did know ahead of time what he was getting into. In this instance, the only function the firearm served was an excuse to claim potentially lethal force and shoot the guy.

    Now, I don't want to blame the individual officer just yet. This is an instance of a culture gone wrong, and of the wrong training and the wrong mindset being used on a massive scale. This is a bigger problem than a single cop.
    Last edited by marshaul; 01-17-2011 at 12:56 AM.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    My point is that firearms aren't the only means of force available to law enforcement officers, yet it seems to be a repeat writeup that they're the first choice used on we, the people.

    I have a vested interest in this, as I open carry, and would prefer not to be shot by a cop on the basis of a mwag call, particularly if that man is me and I'm doing my best not to shoot others in a dangerous situation, say, they attempted to rob a store with knives, I've got them disarmed, and ready for processing.

    Do any one of us really want to be shot simply because we're OCing? Then let's please not excuse (or confuse) a law-enforcement officer's right to carry and use deadly force with their responsibility to use less than deadly force should that be an option.

    [QUOTE=marshaul;1445553]Doncha know? LA cops use tasers as compliance assurance devices. They would never risk even a beating if they could just shoot someone. Which begs the question, of course, what the hell we train them for, since a citizen could do the same thing. There is nothing in place to non-lethally subdue violent but nonlethal perpetrators, which seems like one of the few reasons for police to even exist. If we're just going to shoot everyone who makes a scene, why need police? Armed citizens could fill that roll just fine.

    Bingo! You get it - thanks.

    This is an instance of a culture gone wrong, and of the wrong training and the wrong mindset being used on a massive scale.
    That's it, so how do we change that mindset when some people respond, "I'd just shoot the guy." Seriously - I carry a retention holster. If I'm in a tussle with some guy, I'm certainly not going to help him get my firearm by unlocking it from my holster! I'd first get him off me (there are several ways to do this in rapid fashion), then draw, and reassess the situation. If he stops, problem solved. If not, then I'd shoot him.
    Last edited by since9; 01-17-2011 at 02:07 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    He was gunned down by cowards who are above the law. How many cops were there? Easier to hide behind your car and shoot an unarmed man than have the guts to do your job and subdue him. They save tasers for 80 year olds.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    He was gunned down by cowards who are above the law. How many cops were there? Easier to hide behind your car and shoot an unarmed man than have the guts to do your job and subdue him. They save tasers for 80 year olds.
    I tried to be a little bit more diplomatic in my assessment, but it's hard to find any fault with the truthful simplicity of yours.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059
    The police should be expected to risk life and limb to do the job in the best way. Just as a pilot is expected to fly a broken plane to the ground rather than wave goodbye as he dons a parachute en route to the door. It is the job.

    Introducing a previously unavailable weapon is really dumb. What real harm is there in a crazy guy running around naked? Just wait him out, like running your prey to exhaustion.

  10. #10
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    The police should be expected to risk life and limb to do the job in the best way. Just as a pilot is expected to fly a broken plane to the ground rather than wave goodbye as he dons a parachute en route to the door. It is the job.

    Introducing a previously unavailable weapon is really dumb. What real harm is there in a crazy guy running around naked? Just wait him out, like running your prey to exhaustion.
    You, sir, have articulated EXACTLY the point my previous long-winded post was making, and done so in a most accessible and unarguable fashion! I am pleased and impressed. Thank you!

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by nonameisgood View Post
    The police should be expected to risk life and limb to do the job in the best way. Just as a pilot is expected to fly a broken plane to the ground rather than wave goodbye as he dons a parachute en route to the door. It is the job.
    As an aircrewmember, I'll weigh in just a bit. nonameisgood, depending upon whether a pilot's cargo is people (as we refer to as "souls," which we take with the utmost seriousness), vs simple cargo (which would rarely add but a smidgen more "boom" than the impact of our aircraft+fuel on the ground.

    Given that, our duty was always first to the life and limb of our pax. I'm not going to go into the myriads of details thereof, except to say it's little different in the military than it is with the civilian airlines.

    Obviously, you know that for special missions, things are different. I've been on more than one, but I can tell you, both they and I volunteered for the job, and that the rules were different, but as we volunteered, that's that, and we got the job done.

    Nonameisgood, no pilot is expected to fly the airplane into the ground. He is expected to do whatever can be done to ensure the minimum loss of life, and I, having been one such aircrew, would have done so, willingly, to help whatever pax we were carrying make it home to theirs.

    And yes, if that meant sacrificing my own life as an aircrewmember for the life of a pax, I would hope my son might one day understand.

    That's the "accepted solution."

    Having flown 2000+ hours as an aircrewmember, I've always had somewhat of a different solution: Do whatever the hell you can to ge the job done, but dang it! Get it done, and return home!

    Rail me mil folks for halving balanced some sort of reality between duty and home.

    If you'll know, I'm working towards a more appropriate balance of these long-term home/work issues. Yeah, I know - wish me luck.

    Still, I'm trying. Don't give up hope.
    Last edited by since9; 01-19-2011 at 09:22 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    RCW 9A.16.040
    Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

    (snip)

    Notes:
    Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

    I wonder how many states have notes like this, and why it is ignored.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    RCW 9A.16.040
    Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

    (snip)

    Notes:
    Legislative recognition: "The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers." [1986 c 209 § 3.]

    I wonder how many states have notes like this, and why it is ignored.
    Wow, what a sensible "legislative recognition". I'm almost surprised to actually see something like this, except for the fact that it is utterly reasonable.
    Last edited by marshaul; 01-19-2011 at 11:35 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Wow, what a sensible "legislative recognition". I'm almost surprised to actually see something like this, except for the fact that it is utterly reasonable.
    But is it enforced? Not at all.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    This Youtube video pretty much says it all:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsCuu...eature=related
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  16. #16
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    I, too, would have shot the guy. As I was reading the story, I was remended of an incident shorty after the CHL came into existence in Texas. The first guy with a CHL to defend himself with his weapon.

    There was a traffic incident and one guy(unarmed) was pounding on the other in side the second guys vehicle. Guy #2 shot him killing him. The grand jury nobilled him.
    Last edited by rodbender; 01-24-2011 at 12:20 PM.
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    But is it enforced? Not at all.
    No, of course it isn't. But at least someone conceded the point in the form of a law.

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    No, of course it isn't. But at least someone conceded the point in the form of a law.
    Yep and I make sure I point it out as much as I can to those who feel differently about police actions.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    55

    Tragic

    Sounds like yet another tragic failure of law enforcement professionals to act professionally.

    In the UK (where I was born and have lived, on and off, for many years) there have been several cases recently that highlighted a disturbing undercurrent in the British police forces - the desire to be more and more heavily armed and especially to be routinely armed with firearms (handguns, especially). Anyone with passing knowledge of the UK knows that to all intents and purposes, anything but shotguns are illegal to British citizens and those have some fairly stringent requirements on storage and transport. In this light, the desire of the police to be some sort of 'super-citizen' is deeply disturbing and their desire to freely use these new 'toys' is outright sickening.

    Unfortunately, policing has become an unglamorous job with increasing lack of respect from the 'man on the street' and long hours expected, much of it doing paperwork or transporting suspects to custody, which means that they are recruiting and retaining only two kinds of person: the very dedicated, who honestly believes they should serve society at large & the power-junkie who likes telling people what to do and bullying them with the advantage of a culture that practically guarantees they will get away with it.

    I've long suspected that much same thing is true of the LAPD, in the USA, amongst others.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Well said, gaidheal. So what's the fix? Continue to allow citizens to be armed, while disarming the police, unless they obtain judicial authority (warrant) to use deadly force, unless responding to a no-kidding emergency as decided upon by two or more police officers?

    Personally, I think so.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    55
    My honest opinion is that citizens should be free to reasonably arm themselves (I realize that 'reasonably' is a qualifier but this is what I actually think ought to be the case - precise details, well that takes some discussion and is a side issue).

    The police (whether Sheriffs, State or whatever) should also, clearly, be able to arm themselves, possibly with somewhat easier access to firearms that would otherwise be more difficult to own or use practically (I realize I am sort of making a 'super-citizen' case here but bear in mind that we already give them powers that others do not have, subject to what follows...) however: I think they must be held to a higher standard. I think extensive training must be required in the use of firearms, melee weapons (such as batons) and unarmed hand-to-hand combat, with special emphasis on restraint techniques. I think that until they have received and qualified in such training, an individual officer must not be permitted to use them, furthermore I think there must be stringent rules on force levels for dealing with citizens who are not clearly and directly threatening the lives of others. No more shooting people who are waving swords. No more tasering of grannies who are shouting.

    I especially think that treating someone who happens to be armed as if they are actually an immediate threat to your life must be stopped. I'm more dangerous with my hands, elbows, knees and feet, at an appropriate range, than most would-be pistol slingers are with their chosen weapon. No-one slams me to the ground every time I go to shake a hand because they're ignorant of these facts and it's the same ignorance and irrational fear that leads people to treat armed persons as if they are about to turn into a murderer.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I think one of the funniest jokes in the movies and on TV, albeit becoming a bit cliche, is when some guy starts his kung pow schtick, and the good guy puts a cap in his *** and calmly walks away.

    On topic, "reasonable" gun control (regulations) arrived at through discussion (then, presumably, a vote) is democracy. We should deplore democracy. It is a system whereby rights can be destroyed via "a discussion and a vote."

    The right, as it was enshrined in the 2A, is uninfringeable, no matter how "reasonable" anyone (or the majority) thinks an infringement would be. That's kinda why, in a republic, we protect rights: we are mainly protecting them those who would vote them away.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    55
    Aye, that's always a fun joke but any real practitioner will be too close for someone to casually pull a gun and calmly shoot, of course. Most modern classes will also teach weapon control - how to keep any you have, how to take any they wield. Regardless, it's funny and not the topic. :¬)

    Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course but you seem to misunderstand what defines a republic and a democracy. The USA is both. Republics have a president as their head of state and some other form of legislating authority, which the president must either ratify or veto (usually thus sending it back for amendment and further discussion). Democracies elect their governments, in one fashion or another and vote on their laws, directly or indirectly. Rights are indeed rights, I was outlining what I think reasonable, not what the legal position actually is, however bear in mind that the constitution was arrived at through discussion and voting. Don't pretend to be ignorant of that, as you've demonstrated knowledge of the history before.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Gaidheal View Post
    Aye, that's always a fun joke but any real practitioner will be too close for someone to casually pull a gun and calmly shoot, of course. Most modern classes will also teach weapon control - how to keep any you have, how to take any they wield. Regardless, it's funny and not the topic. :¬)

    Well, you're entitled to your opinion, of course but you seem to misunderstand what defines a republic and a democracy. The USA is both. Republics have a president as their head of state and some other form of legislating authority, which the president must either ratify or veto (usually thus sending it back for amendment and further discussion). Democracies elect their governments, in one fashion or another and vote on their laws, directly or indirectly. Rights are indeed rights, I was outlining what I think reasonable, not what the legal position actually is, however bear in mind that the constitution was arrived at through discussion and voting. Don't pretend to be ignorant of that, as you've demonstrated knowledge of the history before.
    I am afraid that your "genius" does not extend to knowing what a democracy is. We are not one. We are a republic with some democratic processes. That does not make us a democracy. Thank God. Rights are not protected at all in a democracy.

    On edit: Nor does it extend to your knowing what a republic is. What makes a republic is representative government. It is primarily the Congress that makes us a republic, not the existence of the presidency.

    Moving on.
    Last edited by eye95; 01-29-2011 at 11:24 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    55
    Sorry, eye, but that's just not correct. They are not mutually exclusive and certainly not contrastable. The USA calls itself a republic now but the term wasn't even really used for it until the late 19th C. Really, there was only one person who ever tried to define the USA as being specifically a republic and contrasting that with what he called a democracy; however his choices of defintion just don't bear out and are by no means universal. That man was James Madison, of course.

    I'm afraid that the USA is most assuredly a 'representative democracy' (since the people elect representatives, who then themselves votes on legislation). Some states operate much closer to a 'direct democracy' within the state, for example Arizona and California with their 'propositions' and Sheriffs are elected, too, of course.

    My genius is quite safe, thanks. ;¬)

    P.S. What makes you a republic is having an elected head of state, as opposed to a monarchy. It goes right back to Rome and Greece.

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
  •