+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL FORUM NEWS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+--- Thread: New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot (/showthread.php?tid=15866)
Pages:
1
2
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - PeterD - 04-05-2018
We just had a traffic stop incident require the officer to immediately fire upon the driver.
https://bearingarms.com/john-d/2018/04/05/texas-officer-shoots-suspect-on-traffic-stop/
But now California's liberal government thinks to limit their cops ability to react under threat.
https://bearingarms.com/john-d/2018/04/05/new-law-to-limit-officers-shooting-suspects/
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - 98Z - 04-07-2018
Unreal. I can't even comprehend what their mentality is.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - stanc - 04-07-2018
PeterD Wrote:We just had a traffic stop incident require the officer to immediately fire upon the driver.From the linked article: "Dont point a firearm, or something that is intended to look like one, at an officer, and no one will get shot."
https://bearingarms.com/john-d/2018/04/05/texas-officer-shoots-suspect-on-traffic-stop/
Riiiiight. Tell that to the guy who was recently shot multiple times in the back by two cops who only imagined that he had a gun.
If police are going to be authorized to shoot citizens in "self defense," why shouldn't they be required to determine for sure that there is actually a need to shoot?
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - CVCOBRA1 - 04-08-2018
There are common sense rules to follow if you get stopped in your car or are stopped by patrol on the sidewalk. Don't put your hands in your pocket and don't run. Criminals don't have the common sense to follow those rules.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - stanc - 04-09-2018
CVCOBRA1 Wrote:There are common sense rules to follow if you get stopped in your car or are stopped by patrol on the sidewalk. Don't put your hands in your pocket and don't run.I totally agree with your "common sense" rules. However, you are blaming the victim, and assigning no responsibility to the shooters.
In this particular case, he was not stopped in his car, or on the sidewalk. He was in his grandmother's back yard, holding a cellphone.
Now, he had been running, but it's not certain if he was running from the police, who never identified themselves as law enforcement.
At the initial sighting, the bodycam video that was released shows a cop shout, "Hey! Show me your [unintelligible word]! Stop! F&@k!"
A few seconds later, the same cop shouts, "Show me your [unintelligible words]!"
A few seconds after that, the same cop shouts, "Show me your ha...gungungun!"
That was followed immediately by bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang.
Due to fear, the cop imagined he saw a gun, where there was only a cellphone. Perhaps some people are just too fearful to be cops?
[video=youtube;7avxbmMkyXo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7avxbmMkyXo[/video]
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - CVCOBRA1 - 04-09-2018
He still ran. When you hear the cops footsteps take off running the cop was running because he saw something. I will say they could have done a better job of identifying themselves. He had time to stop and scream "don't shoot" but didn't. Why were the cops called to the area. Had to be because of some kind of suspicious activity. I doubt it was a domestic call because they were already searching the neighborhood with flashlights out. They are trained to shoot center mass and continue until the threat is over. Should they shoot at the subjects legs? That's on TV and only gets cops killed.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - stanc - 04-09-2018
CVCOBRA1 Wrote:He still ran.AFAIK, running from police is not a capital offense.
CVCOBRA1 Wrote:I will say they could have done a better job of identifying themselves.A "better" job? LOL. They didn't do a poor job of identifying themselves. The video shows they didn't even try to identify themselves.
CVCOBRA1 Wrote:He had time to stop and scream "don't shoot" but didn't.Seriously? Where did he have enough time to scream "Don't shoot!" in the 10 microseconds between "GUNGUNGUN!" and the fusillade of gunfire?
However, if you want to pay that game, the cop had plenty of time to scream, "Drop your cellphone, or I'll shoot!" but didn't.
CVCOBRA1 Wrote:Why were the cops called to the area. Had to be because of some kind of suspicious activity.Vandalism. Which is also not a capital offense. (http://fox5sandiego.com/2018/04/06/stephon-clarks-neighbor-says-he-regrets-calling-911-he-didnt-deserve-that/)
CVCOBRA1 Wrote:They are trained to shoot center mass and continue until the threat is over.Yeah. Only trouble is, the "threat" was imaginary, not real.
CVCOBRA1 Wrote:Should they shoot at the subjects legs?Nope. What they should do is determine if a person actually is a genuine threat before shooting.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - CVCOBRA1 - 04-09-2018
What would you have done?
Bang, you're dead!!!!!!!
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - CVCOBRA1 - 04-09-2018
stanc Wrote:AFAIK, running from police is not a capital offense.
No, but it sure as heck draws their attention.
A "better" job? LOL. They didn't do a poor job of identifying themselves. The video shows they didn't even try to identify themselves.
The only thing the cops would be guilty of.
Seriously? Where did he have enough time to scream "Don't shoot!" in the 10 microseconds between "GUNGUNGUN!" and the fusillade of gunfire?
When he started running AWAY he should have put his hands up and identified HIMSELF.
Vandalism. Which is also not a capital offense. (http://fox5sandiego.com/2018/04/06/stephon-clarks-neighbor-says-he-regrets-calling-911-he-didnt-deserve-that/)
Back to running-the guilty always run.W
Yeah. Only trouble is, the "threat" was imaginary, not real.
When he finally turned around towards them he had a shiny object in his hand.
Nope. What they should do is determine if a person actually is a genuine threat before shooting.
Bang, you're dead.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - TKO - 04-09-2018
stanc Wrote:If police are going to be authorized to shoot citizens in "self defense," why shouldn't they be required to determine for sure that there is actually a need to shoot?
Because to be 100% certain that deadly force was imminent an officer would have to wait until the subject actually fired on him before he could then respond with the necessary force to save his life or the lives of others. The mere production of a deadly weapon (or something that appeared to be one) would not reach your "Necessary" criteria. In fact, if a weapon were produced and pointed at the officer, it is still unnecessary to shoot, because the subject might be talked out of shooting.
Unfortunately, that would require police to only react and shoot after the subject has fired a round (or two or three - not unreasonable based on reaction times). Taking the "Necessity Argument" to it's logical end, it is only truly "necessary" to use deadly force if deadly force is actually being deployed against the officer.
If a subject makes a furtive motion reaching to a location that a pistol is often carried and produces a dark object and points it at an officer, the officer has been placed in a position of reasonably fearing for his life and under current statute has the right to defend with reasonable force.
The courts have ruled that officers and civilians alike will be judged by the "Reasonable response" standard under the totality of the circumstances.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - montana - 04-09-2018
If a law enforcement person tells you to stand on your head and whistle Dixie, you do your best to stand on your head and whistle Dixie. Never argue, resist, or show a defiant, aggressive attitude towards them. Always let your council file your grievance. I have known many people in law enforcement and they are just like any other section of society with good and bad players. Make sure you comply with their orders and always keep your hands where they can see them. Always ask for permission before you reach for your wallet, cell phone, etc. Don't bet your life they will know or understand what your true intentions are.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - CVCOBRA1 - 04-09-2018
You can bet every cops life that the libs in California want to pull an O'bummer:
"You can't fire until you've been fired upon"
He did that to our men in service and if Moonbeam tries to do that to the men in blue in Commifornia they wont have a police force. They will just quit and leave.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - stanc - 04-09-2018
CVCOBRA1 Wrote:What would you have done?Riiiiight. And just exactly how would he manage to shoot me dead with his cellphone???
Bang, you're dead!!!!!!!
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - CVCOBRA1 - 04-09-2018
And you obviously knew it was a cellphone?
Bang! You're dead.......
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - stanc - 04-09-2018
TKO Wrote:Um, yeah. My comment was not worded as well as it could've been. I don't consider 100% certainty of a suspect's intent to be necessary, which -- as you note -- would require waiting until he/she has actually started shooting at the police.stanc Wrote:If police are going to be authorized to shoot citizens in "self defense," why shouldn't they be required to determine for sure that there is actually a need to shoot?Because to be 100% certain that deadly force was imminent an officer would have to wait until the subject actually fired on him before he could then respond with the necessary force to save his life or the lives of others. The mere production of a deadly weapon (or something that appeared to be one) would not reach your "Necessary" criteria. In fact, if a weapon were produced and pointed at the officer, it is still unnecessary to shoot, because the subject might be talked out of shooting.
Unfortunately, that would require police to only react and shoot after the subject has fired a round (or two or three - not unreasonable based on reaction times). Taking the "Necessity Argument" to it's logical end, it is only truly "necessary" to use deadly force if deadly force is actually being deployed against the officer.
But, I do think that a higher degree of certainty that a suspect actually has a weapon, should be required. Ending a person's life on the basis of fear-induced imagination serves no one well.
TKO Wrote:If a subject makes a furtive motion reaching to a location that a pistol is often carried and produces a dark object and points it at an officer, the officer has been placed in a position of reasonably fearing for his life...None of which applies in this case. I've seen no claim that the deceased made a furtive motion reaching to a location that a pistol is often carried, then producing a dark object and pointing it at the cop.
According to reported transcripts of what cop #1 said, he repeatedly ordered the suspect to "Show me your hands!" When the suspect did show his hands, holding a cellphone, he was immediately shot.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - stanc - 04-09-2018
CVCOBRA1 Wrote:And you obviously knew it was a cellphone?Still waiting for you to explain how he could've shot me with his cellphone...
Bang! You're dead.......
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - stanc - 04-09-2018
montana Wrote:I have known many people in law enforcement and they are just like any other section of society with good and bad players.Yeah, I know. Most of my friends were cops. One of them told me of a traffic stop he once made solely because the driver was a black male, and the passenger a white female.
montana Wrote:If a law enforcement person tells you to stand on your head and whistle Dixie, you do your best to stand on your head and whistle Dixie. Never argue, resist, or show a defiant, aggressive attitude towards them. Always let your council file your grievance. Make sure you comply with their orders and always keep your hands where they can see them. Always ask for permission before you reach for your wallet, cell phone, etc. Don't bet your life they will know or understand what your true intentions are.Completely agree. I think those realities should probably be taught in school. I didn't come to understand them until after many conversations with friends in law enforcement.
If not for lessons learned from them, there's a good chance I would've been shot by cops at some point in my life, as I had a tendency to get stopped for "suspicious" behavior.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - Klem - 04-09-2018
stanc Wrote:Riiiiight. And just exactly how would he manage to shoot me dead with his cellphone???
By pointing it at you and pressing the button...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]11585[/ATTACH]
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - Tex Nomex - 04-09-2018
California would rather lose a few officers than suffer another Black Lives Matters tantrum.
New California Law Seeks to Limit When Officers Can Shoot - TKO - 04-09-2018
stanc Wrote:Um, yeah. My comment was not worded as well as it could've been. I don't consider 100% certainty of a suspect's intent to be necessary, which -- as you note -- would require waiting until he/she has actually started shooting at the police.
But, I do think that a higher degree of certainty that a suspect actually has a weapon, should be required. Ending a person's life on the basis of fear-induced imagination serves no one well.
And would you please put into wording what that "higher degree of certainty" standard should be and how it should be implemented?
Police are in the unenviable position of having to react to the stimulus presented. If they fail to react quickly, they could die, bystanders could die.
I have a suggestion (and I am not being a wise ass): take a "Shoot/Don't Shoot" course that is run with Simunitions ammo. You will soon (painfully) realize how little time you have to react before you or others get shot by the "bad guy". I can pretty much guarantee you that your eyes will be opened to the truth of the matter.
Each police involved shooting is (and should be) investigated and is judged by the reasonableness of the actions taken to the stimulus encountered.