Bad news for WA LEOs

[Squidly]

People like her wave signs and hate cops, until, they are the victim of crime. Then they start screaming where were the Cops. Too bad more of them don't end up being victims of the scum they want to protect more often.

All cops are trigger happy A-holes, but only cops should have guns...

 

[caarecengi]

My wife was with me - she hates it when I engage with these idiots - but then again, while she's a more liberal than I am, but also refused to sign the petition. AND she supports the LEOs and the 2nd amendment, so...

 

[RetiredVet]

This is a solution to a non-existent problem—a "feel good" solution. Where is the problem? Is it too many shootings? Is is racial? One cop charged out of over 200–which is pretty low for the years it covered anyway. I am not advocating for the OK Corral, but some common sense has to be used—and I'm not talking about the cop. If you decide to bum-rush a police officer, you deserve to get shot. If you decide to act like an idiot and threaten an officer with your actions—you pay the price.

 

[best defense]

Looks like Washington lawmakers are aiming to neuter their police officers.

Washington lawmakers move quickly on police deadly force law

We will see what happens when police officers quit in droves.

 

[hammerli240]

As an LEO, my biggest issue with the proposed changes have to do with the other reasons that LE can use deadly force where the general public may not. I'm not worried about having issues with a reactive shoot to an immediate threat.

There are instances where deadly force is used to prevent escape or destruction of certain types of government property. Most cases the person is unarmed but are still shot, and for good reason. The law says in those instances, the box is checked and you pull the trigger.

The way the new law would open up those types of shootings to the power of suggestion by someone's parents who can't believe theirnunarmed kid is dead, is troublesome to me.

Otherwise, the law doesn't do anything Graham V. Connor and Tennessee V. Garner didn't already do.

So you are saying that it is ok to shoot an unarmed 'suspect ' if you can get away with it? I say suspect because we are all innocent until proven guilty, at least the law says so the last time I checked.

 

[No_Regerts]

So you are saying that it is ok to shoot an unarmed 'suspect ' if you can get away with it? I say suspect because we are all innocent until proven guilty, at least the law says so the last time I checked.

No, I'm saying the law requires that deadly force be used in some situations regardless of whether the person is armed or not, in high risk situations. People aren't well educated about this and the first instinct is to be unhappy the person wasn't armed. Prison escapees, breaches of government property of a sensitive nature, and certain hostage situations are examples.

 

[best defense]

A person who does not have what would be considered a deadly weapon but who uses a motor vehicle in a reckless manor can be considered armed, and those kind of people have in fact murdered people. So the families of those people now get to tie up the courts for years with wrongful death suits. There is pain on both sides, and the courts should not be the venue to decide which side has the most pain. Certainly not the juries.

 

[Joly]

I am like you Squidly. I am old, 68 small, 5'9" disabled, 40% with a bad back and osteoporosis... and I pretty much want to shoot anyone that attacks me or rushes me with intent to do harm. I'd probably have to do time for shooting some A hole that attacks me; how can it be that we have to suffer for the idiots? It just isn't right and probably never will be.

 

[bbbass]

350lb unarmed 20yr old man physically assaults you, a 180lb 45yr old man, breaks your face with his fists, tries to take your firearm, and is coming back for round two... good shoot or bad shoot? Is he really unarmed?

 

[Squidly]

I am like you Squidly. I am old, 68 small, 5'9" disabled, 40% with a bad back and osteoporosis... and I pretty much want to shoot anyone that attacks me or rushes me with intent to do harm. I'd probably have to do time for shooting some A hole that attacks me; how can it be that we have to suffer for the idiots? It just isn't right and probably never will be.

I had the same realization when I started carrying. My wife noticed the change in my behavior. Granted, I live in a very safe neighborhood. The risk of work place violence is also nearly nonexistant, so I don't expect trouble But the thought of being procecuted for defending myself has significantly improved my situational awareness (notice everybody around you, and subtly acknowlege their presence). The wife loves it. It makes her feel safer because she also understands that it reduces the likelihood of a dumbass trying to assume his natural state. Use your imagination on that one.

 

[Squidly]

350lb unarmed 20yr old man physically assaults you, a 180lb 45yr old man, breaks your face with his fists, tries to take your firearm, and is coming back for round two... good shoot or bad shoot? Is he really unarmed?

At first glance, sounds like it would be good shoot.

 

[kott0n]

350lb unarmed 20yr old man physically assaults you, a 180lb 45yr old man, breaks your face with his fists, tries to take your firearm, and is coming back for round two... good shoot or bad shoot? Is he really unarmed?

I'll play. Good shoot regardless of size since there was an attack.

How about face down on the ground with hands behind your back and 3 people (officers ) have guns drawn on you and shoot. Clean shoot or bad shoot?

 

[Caveman Jim]

350lb unarmed 20yr old man physically assaults you, a 180lb 45yr old man, breaks your face with his fists, tries to take your firearm, and is coming back for round two... good shoot or bad shoot? Is he really unarmed?

Yep, I'm too old to run but too young to die and that will be my defense.

 

[No_Regerts]

350lb unarmed 20yr old man physically assaults you, a 180lb 45yr old man, breaks your face with his fists, tries to take your firearm, and is coming back for round two... good shoot or bad shoot? Is he really unarmed?

Size mismatch, physical prowess, skills/training, injuries incurred during the altercation, mental state, and possible substance impairment are "Graham" factors recognized by the courts identified in Graham V. Connor which establishes what is a reasonable use of force.

 

[Alexx1401]

At first glance, sounds like it would be good shoot.

In a situation like the one posted it depends on a few factors. Which LEO questions you, where you are at as in which D/A or such makes the choice, and probably the biggest one, can you keep your yap shut once they read you your rights. Wait for a lawyer. Almost every time you read about someone getting in a "jam" over a shoot it starts with the one who is in a jam unable to to shut up. Once you are told "anything you say will be used against you" it's time to stop talking. A shocking number just keep talking themselves into court.

 

[Alexx1401]

I'll play. Good shoot regardless of size since there was an attack.

How about face down on the ground with hands behind your back and 3 people (officers ) have guns drawn on you and shoot. Clean shoot or bad shoot?

Can you find a shoot like this where ANYONE is saying this was good? If so I would like to read it and see just who is saying this kind of shoot was "good".

 

[bbbass]

350lb unarmed 20yr old man physically assaults you, a 180lb 45yr old man, breaks your face with his fists, tries to take your firearm, and is coming back for round two... good shoot or bad shoot? Is he really unarmed?

At first glance, sounds like it would be good shoot.

Yep, I'm too old to run but too young to die and that will be my defense.

Size mismatch, physical prowess, skills/training, injuries incurred during the altercation, mental state, and possible substance impairment are "Graham" factors recognized by the courts identified in Graham V. Connor which establishes what is a reasonable use of force.

In a situation like the one posted it depends on a few factors. Which LEO questions you, where you are at as in which D/A or such makes the choice, and probably the biggest one, can you keep your yap shut once they read you your rights. Wait for a lawyer. Almost every time you read about someone getting in a "jam" over a shoot it starts with the one who is in a jam unable to to shut up. Once you are told "anything you say will be used against you" it's time to stop talking. A shocking number just keep talking themselves into court.

It was a trick question... this was the situation that Darren Wilson was put in by one Michael Brown of Ferguson, MO. Officer responding to a call and spotted the subject, the subject eventually beat the officer inside the patrol car thru the open door, breaking the officer's eye socket and grappling for the officer's firearm. The officer shot the man when the subject was returning to the patrol car and menacing the officer. Wilson successfully defended himself again in court. At least he is alive, but the case lives on in infamy.

I understand. It is hard to call what happened "good", but I think it depends on ones perspective. The officer survived the encounter = good. The BG is deceased = good. The officer was badly injured = not good. The community and indeed the nation is still in an uproar = not good. But whose fault is this? IMO the BG, the activists, the people, the media.

I'm with those that say "I want to live"!!!

 

[Caveman Jim]

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[SIG34]

Criminals will sleep better at night!

Thanks liberals....

 

[Squidly]

It was a trick question... this was the situation that Darren Wilson was put in by one Michael Brown of Ferguson, MO. Officer responding to a call and spotted the subject, the subject eventually beat the officer inside the patrol car thru the open door, breaking the officer's eye socket and grappling for the officer's firearm. The officer shot the man when the subject was returning to the patrol car and menacing the officer. Wilson successfully defended himself again in court. At least he is alive, but the case lives on in infamy.

I understand. It is hard to call what happened "good", but I think it depends on ones perspective. The officer survived the encounter = good. The BG is deceased = good. The officer was badly injured = not good. The community and indeed the nation is still in an uproar = not good. But whose fault is this? IMO the BG, the activists, the people, the media.

I'm with those that say "I want to live"!!!

I always thought that "Hands up don't shoot" was fake news.