"Legitimate Sacrificial Citizen"?

[Citizen]

SNIP The fact that so many are dog piling the cop is not acceptable.

What!?! Bwhahahahahahahahahahahaa!!!

You hear that, folks? Its not acceptable! He has standing to determine acceptable behavior from the rest of us! Who knew?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha!!

 

[eye95]

He is free to express that judgment--and that is all it is, his judgment. I have more respect for how he expressed his opinion than how you expressed yours.

 

[Citizen]

He is free to express that judgment--and that is all it is, his judgment. I have more respect for how he expressed his opinion than how you expressed yours.

OK. I have no respect for somebody who thinks he's lord enough to tell others that their expression of their opinions is not acceptable.

We're not his children, serfs, nor subjects.

 

[eye95]

And your post did not have the same goal? To let him know that you found his opinion of the opinions of others unacceptable?

Like I said, I respect the way he expressed that idea better than you expressed a near duplicate idea--the disdain for an opinion of another.

And, yes, I know. I am expressing precisely the same kind of idea. I am expressing disdain for your opinion and the way you chose to express it. We all do it. We should just do it in a rational and adult way. He did. I did. You didn't.

JMO. Moving on.

 

[Citizen]

And your post did not have the same goal? To let him know that you found his opinion of the opinions of others unacceptable?

Like I said, I respect the way he expressed that idea better than you expressed a near duplicate idea--the disdain for an opinion of another.

And, yes, I know. I am expressing precisely the same kind of idea. I am expressing disdain for your opinion and the way you chose to express it. We all do it. We should just do it in a rational and adult way. He did. I did. You didn't.

JMO. Moving on.

I think you're missing something, there. I wasn't criticizing his opinion. I was critizing the viewpoint that formed the opinion.

 

[XD40sc]

The BG(police officer) could have took cover, OR if he was that close a head shot should have been no problem, if he can't do that he had no business firing. The result was the same as the suspect shooting the victim, she is dead.

And I have been in his situation, I was the first officer on the scene for a hostage crisis at Fiat Allis research and development center. All officers until the sheriff arrived obeyed my commands, not to engage, to seek cover, and contain, until hostage negotiators arrived. All hostages were recovered safely and the suspect was taken into custody without incident. And yes several times the suspect pointed a rifle at me in my cover position. As I was the closest. Self control, patience, and common sense, and above all the safety of the victims comes before officer safety. ALL officers back then practiced head shots from combat distances to 25 yards, if you cannot hit a head at 25 yards you have no business being a police officer.

If ya can't handle that take off the badge!

He should be arrested, formally charged, tried, and if convicted, imprisoned. There are no excuses for killing innocent citizens, NONE!

You've watched too many TV cop dramas. NO ONE can guarantee the desired outcome every time, and the person that says they can is a fool, or suffers delusional superhero syndrome.

We, meaning both of us, have no idea how bat **** crazy this guy was, or what he was on.

 

[sharkey]

Let's just callously forget about the dead victim here since apparently focusing on emotion is verboten.

Police are not (should not be anyway) above the law.

If it was you or I who made that mistake we would be charged and facing a jury.

So the real issue here is the disparity between citizen and police when it comes to enforcing the law.

Seriously though, who unloads a whole ******* mag at someone holding a hostage, if you did that I would probably not call for jury nullification. If you took a couple shots and missed I might. It depends on the totality of the situation.

 

[sharkey]

You've watched too many TV cop dramas. NO ONE can guarantee the desired outcome every time, and the person that says they can is a fool, or suffers delusional superhero syndrome.

We, meaning both of us, have no idea how bat **** crazy this guy was, or what he was on.

You equate proper training with watching too many TV dramas? He was not offering a hypothetical example, he was sharing real world experience.

These police need to train better, they miss and misidentify targets too often.

 

[randian]

NO ONE can guarantee the desired outcome every time, and the person that says they can is a fool, or suffers delusional superhero syndrome. We, meaning both of us, have no idea how bat **** crazy this guy was, or what he was on.

Delusional superhero syndrome? It seems to me that's exactly what the cop was suffering from. You know there's a guy with a hostage and your first instinct is to enter an unfamiliar home and confront him? In what circumstance is that likely to prolong the hostage's life, especially if he's crazy?

 

[since9]

At the risk of sounding crass, I delicately ask if is OK to sacrifice a citizen as long as the officer goes home at the end of the shift?

From what I've read and heard on the news about this:

- Gunman was gripping hostage in one arm, holding firearm in the other
- Gunman was pointing gun at hostage
- Police were engaged, weapons drawn, trying to de-escalate the situation, talking him down
- At one point, the perp pointed his gun at the police
- In response, police shot the gunman, killing him. Unfortunately, hostage was also hit, and killed.

I have no problem "arm-chair quarterbacking" the situation, so here goes:

1) I wasn't there, so I can't say one way or the other whether other civilians were threatened by the perp's line of fire. At least one civilian, however, (the hostage) was indeed threatened with deadly force by the perp.

2) Cops are taught to employ good use of cover. When under good cover, a cop should not be hugely concerned about a gunman hitting him. It remains, however, a legitimate concern.

3) If a perp is threatening a hostage with deadly force and you can de-escalate him, do so. If you can't de-escalate him but you have a clean line of fire, take him out. If not, wait. If he winds up shooting the hostage, then it's game over and time to save the taxpayers the grief of decades of trials and prison costs.

From what I gather, the situation was at the "If you can't de-escalate him but you have a clean line of fire, take him out" stage, with the only difference being that the line of fire wasn't as clean as the cop thought.

There's a reason law enforcement employs snipers in these sorts of stand-off situations. They're both trained and equipped for far greater accuracy than your average street cop with a handgun.

 

[XD40sc]

You equate proper training with watching too many TV dramas? He was not offering a hypothetical example, he was sharing real world experience.

These police need to train better, they miss and misidentify targets too often.

The comment about the TV drama is that they are scripted, special effects control shot placement, and the script writer controls the outcome.

Yes, police do need more training, but with departments driving cars with 200,000 miles due to budget problem, and lax standards, basically qualifying once a year to minimum state standards. Call a cop right now, and you may well have an officer respond that hasn't fired his sidearm in 6 months or more. I shoot an average of 3 - 4 times a month to remain proficient.

 

[XD40sc]

Delusional superhero syndrome? It seems to me that's exactly what the cop was suffering from. You know there's a guy with a hostage and your first instinct is to enter an unfamiliar home and confront him? In what circumstance is that likely to prolong the hostage's life, especially if he's crazy?

There's no right response to an unknown, no standard operating procedure fits all situations.

How many kids in Columbine HS died after cops were on the scene but did nothing for a long time but take cover behind their cars and didn't make an effort to enter the building and eliminate the threat.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You've watched too many TV cop dramas. NO ONE can guarantee the desired outcome every time, and the person that says they can is a fool, or suffers delusional superhero syndrome.

We, meaning both of us, have no idea how bat **** crazy this guy was, or what he was on.

I don't watch TV, and you insinuated I was lying. That was a idiotic assumption on your part, that only a complete fool would make.
No matter how bat **** crazy the suspect was, HE DID NOT KILL THE HOSTAGE, the police officer did, she is dead, never to enjoy life again, it is not some police drama, it is real life.

Yea Yea I know the officer stopped the suspect from killing the hostage~~real intelligent!

 

[eye95]

You've watched too many TV cop dramas. NO ONE can guarantee the desired outcome every time, and the person that says they can is a fool, or suffers delusional superhero syndrome.

We, meaning both of us, have no idea how bat **** crazy this guy was, or what he was on.

He says he was a cop. Maybe he played one on TV.

The last person I'd expect to be Monday-morning quarterbacking this cop--with so little information--would be a former cop.

 

[eye95]

There's no right response to an unknown, no standard operating procedure fits all situations.

How many kids in Columbine HS died after cops were on the scene but did nothing for a long time but take cover behind their cars and didn't make an effort to enter the building and eliminate the threat.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

People in those situations have to make split-second calls with an incredible lack of information, and then are subject to us critiquing their judgement with lots of time on our hands and even less information!

If more information develops, I might criticize this officer, but at the moment, with the information we have, I'd have to go with the judgment of the officers on the scene who were dealing with an armed BG threatening to kill a hostage.

 

[marshaul]

To be proficient one must practice regularly. I believe all LEOs should practice regularly. I include those at the Federal level. I ran some simply numbers and was rather surprised by the outcome.

Number of Federal LEOs = 75, 000 × 200 practice rounds per month = 15, 000, 000 rounds × 12 months = 180, 000, 000 rounds a year × 5 years ( this was the time frame of the DHS purchase order that caused so much up roar) = 900, 000, 000 rounds.

That is almost 1 billion rounds for practice alone. This does not include duty ammo or ammo for additional training for special response teams (ie hostage rescue and that sort).

With these numbers I think the government ammo scandal may have been greatly exaggerated. That is unless you think less than 200 rounds a month is all that is necessary to maintain proficiency at a level nesessary to minimize tragedies like the one in the OP.

I do not believe the government needs 180 million rounds/year of proficiency against its citizens, period.

75,000 * 200 = at least two orders of magnitude too high. Pick two zeroes and drop 'em.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I do not believe the government needs 180 million rounds/year of proficiency against its citizens, period.

75,000 * 200 = at least two orders of magnitude too high. Pick two zeroes and drop 'em.

uh .. where are they keeping all this ammo?

 

[SavageOne]

I do not believe the government needs 180 million rounds/year of proficiency against its citizens, period.

75,000 * 200 = at least two orders of magnitude too high. Pick two zeroes and drop 'em.

So, you believe that there are circumstances where those tasked with the use of firearms should not be knowledgeable and proficient in their use? Will you also waive any recourse against them for any instances resulting from this lack of knowledge and proficiency ( say persons shot from neglegent discharges or perhaps persons hit by inaccurate rounds fired at suspects)?

I realize you feel there are too many armed Federal agents, so do I, but there simply are that many. I would perfer that they at least be proficient enough with their issued weapons to reduce the chance of unintended harm to innocent citizens. The intended harm you seem to worry they may inflict via policy...... well those odds are a lot less likely.

 

[XD40sc]

I don't watch TV, and you insinuated I was lying. That was a idiotic assumption on your part, that only a complete fool would make.
No matter how bat **** crazy the suspect was, HE DID NOT KILL THE HOSTAGE, the police officer did, she is dead, never to enjoy life again, it is not some police drama, it is real life.

Yea Yea I know the officer stopped the suspect from killing the hostage~~real intelligent!

No I did not say your were lying, so back the damn truck up, I SAID that not every hostage situation is the same, and the SOP's are NOT a one size fits all. You are NOT superman or super cop, and if the next one (if you are still a LEO) may go south very quickly, and victims die, but you will have followed department procedures.

 

[WalkingWolf]

No I did not say your were lying, so back the damn truck up, I SAID that not every hostage situation is the same, and the SOP's are NOT a one size fits all. You are NOT superman or super cop, and if the next one (if you are still a LEO) may go south very quickly, and victims die, but you will have followed department procedures.

Victims do not die at the hands of good guys, if a cop shoots a innocent person they are not a good guy. Just like any citizen they are responsible for their actions. There is NO EXCUSE! Plus NYS appears to have a problem with police shooting innocent bystanders and victims of crimes, patting them on the back for this behavior is disgusting. Everybody is responsible for their actions, police should not be exempt to shoot anybody they want to, just because.

And yes you did insinuate I was not a LEO, by the ignorant stupid tv show remark. NOW you are lying about the remark. Maybe you are a cop wannabe, excusing screw ups.

BTW cite any department policy that shooting the hostage is acceptable?