Checkpoint cops point guns at motorists

[bnsaibum]

Four pages of griping so far and no one has even considered perspective? As in the photographer's perspective. The photographer may very well have used a high powered telephoto lens to shoot the photo from a distance. I'm not convinced that the business end of the barrel is actually covering any part of the driver's body. Into the back seat is more likely.

 

[Stevenav]

Dude, you DON"T point a gun even NEAR someone like that... ever. Bnsaibum. EVER. The cop should have been attacked by citizens, overpowered, and put in cuffs to stand a civil trial on the spot, right there. He could have killed that motorist accidentally. There is no excuse for that... none at all.

 

[bnsaibum]

Stevenav, I wasn't defending the officer in the photo and you are correct. The 4 rules still apply. However, unless we get a picture with a different view or perspective the officer could be tactically covering the rear bumper or tire for all I can tell.

 

[billdeserthills]

Officer, get that weapon out of my face and get your supervisor here, NOW!

Thats when the taser comes out, if you are lucky

 

[billdeserthills]

Well anyone who thinks that the Police moto that's on their cars "To protect and serve" is true and just better think again!!!


It's true- they just didn't add the last word, "Ourselves"

 

[U201491]

Four pages of griping so far and no one has even considered perspective? As in the photographer's perspective. The photographer may very well have used a high powered telephoto lens to shoot the photo from a distance. I'm not convinced that the business end of the barrel is actually covering any part of the driver's body. Into the back seat is more likely.

Blow it up, do what every you want, but that rifle is pointing right at the drivers face. There is no distortion of perspective error there.

 

[bnsaibum]

Blow it up, do what every you want, but that rifle is pointing right at the drivers face. There is no distortion of perspective error there.

I'm pretty sure the muzzle is not pointed directly at the driver. Just found that this is being discussed at AR15.com.
AP Photo: Checkpoint Cops Point Guns at Americans? Heads (must see pic) - Page 8 - AR15.COM

 

[U201491]

I'm pretty sure the muzzle is not pointed directly at the driver. Just found that this is being discussed at AR15.com.
AP Photo: Checkpoint Cops Point Guns at Americans? Heads (must see pic) - Page 8 - AR15.COM

Those lines do not show anything.
Whoever drew those is hoping people are stupid.
Notice he cut the driver out of the last one. He couldnt fake it with the driver in the pic. The bottom one has the LE Too far to the rear. Another deception. Examine those images again a little longer. The lines along the barrel could go to the vehicle from any angle by just continuing it.
Cut it at the mans face the you will see that. There isn't one sketch there that correctly depicts anything correctly or that isn't deceptively done. Two people can correctly tell you where it was pointed. The cop and the driver.
Look again at the ridiculous positioning in the bottom sketch and then tell me anything done there proves he wasn't looking directly into that muzzle. Look again hard. Dont be fooled. You will see.
Crop the bore line at the face and you will see how the continuation played on suggestion, then reposition the officer correctly forward to where he actually was and without the driver being shown in the blowup he was cut out of he is again trying deception by suggestion. It would have taken a half dozen calculation sets to trig all that properly with accurate dimension of component parts and the scale of that image to be worked out to even have any credibility at all. A bunch of lines as done is comical without any true calculations. It was an ill fated attempt to fix the image and wrongdoing of a broken cop.

 

[duane black]

I'm pretty sure the muzzle is not pointed directly at the driver. Just found that this is being discussed at AR15.com.
AP Photo: Checkpoint Cops Point Guns at Americans? Heads (must see pic) - Page 8 - AR15.COM

Whoever created that post over there has a lot more time on their hands than I do.



Thanks for sharing, interesting perspective for sure. I don't know one way or the other. I do know you shouldn't be shoving a firearm in someone's face unless the next course of action is discharging it.

California's LE culture has been us vs them as long as I have been alive. My father is a retired big city ( CA ) sheriffs dept deputy and even though he is now retired, he is the most negative person I have ever met.

There is a serious issue with the culture, and it is getting worse year after year.

 

[U201491]

Whoever created that post over there has a lot more time on their hands than I do.



Thanks for sharing, interesting perspective for sure. I don't know one way or the other. I do know you shouldn't be shoving a firearm in someone's face unless the next course of action is discharging it.

California's LE culture has been us vs them as long as I have been alive. My father is a retired big city ( CA ) sheriffs dept deputy and even though he is now retired, he is the most negative person I have ever met.

There is a serious issue with the culture, and it is getting worse year after year.

Gangs, Illegals and leftists pretty much dominate the state.
I think it would be pretty difficult to have anything but a negative outlook to be an LEO there. In many ways it is almost masochistic to be one.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

As a driver, cruising down the highway, you have a choice to continue towards a Gestapo-like roadblock or pull a U-turn. I would rather find another route than have an AR jammed in my or my wife's face.

When we were there making even a legal u turn to avoid one might get you pulled over. I did it once but I saw the Stazi 1 mile off and immediately turned

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Well anyone who thinks that the Police moto that's on their cars "To protect and serve" is true and just better think again!!!

Police NOT Obligated to Protect Citizens...Supreme Court Rules 'You're On Your Own' - Minutemen News

Increasingly that original motto has been replaced with mundane passages such as "serving community X", etc

 

[U201491]

Increasingly that original motto has been replaced with mundane passages such as "serving community X", etc

We noticed that happening in many places also.

 

[U201491]

The cop in that photo would have been berated to the likes of which he's never seen had that been me getting the AR pointed at my face like that!! WTF kind of undisciplined monkeys is the CHP slapping uniforms on these days?!!

I get that it was a tactical situation and they're dragnetting for a violent perp, and you can have your weapon ready to go... But at a slight oblique angle not DIRECTLY POINTED at every CITIZEN you come in contact with!!

Jeezuz... I've done FULL ON military checkpoints, and I'm talking locked and loaded M16's, M203's, M60's, 1911's, and a Ma Duce. We NEVER walked up on anyone with weapons planted directly in their face... and this wasn't even in the USA!!

And as often as they shoot themselves in the feet and legs
It should turn anyone's hair white if they have them pointing their guns at them. If you look at the range histories, nearly every accident involves an LEO. Hate to say that but its true.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Well, I don't like to deal with extremes as references, I leave that to the libtards. LAPD is paying out handsomely for the poor decisions made by the officers who shot up the newspaper ladies. They didn't get away with it, and I don't condone it. Under #3, and what you referenced, the language you are looking for is "be sure of your target and what's beyond it".

Reading some of the responses here is just like listening to or reading some of the crap that Bloomberg, Giffords and Feinstain spew on a regular basis about gun owners. You don't know me, you've never seen me on the news, never heard of me mistreating anyone, yet you categorize me like the libtards categorize gun owners.

Unless you actually know the context of the photo, what information was available at the time, and what the specific threat was, you really can't place yourself in anyone's shoes. Fact is, that finger is off the trigger in the photo. Do I know if the vehicle fit the description? The driver? No, neither do you. I just find it interesting how, on a pro-firearm forum, you will find threads like this, where the armadillo helmet wearing conspiracy guys sound just like the 3 pieces of anti-gun garbage I mentioned earlier. Have a great weekend and stay safe if you're getting the wind and stuff we are. . I'm taking the wife to the range in a little bit . .

Police shot a Blue Pickup Truck when they were looking for a Grey one...innocent people could have been killed. You see nothing wrong with that?

Lets go over some basics...

1) You have to positively identify your target as a threat before you engage. These officers saw a suspicious vehicle driving around, made up their minds that it was the suspects and ambushed it. They engaged a friendly target. I can understand if they were driving the same vehicle as the BOLO, but even then restraint and discipline was severly lacking.

2) You have to have a deadly threat to use deadly force. Driving around with Newspapers is not a deadly threat; I don't think I can be any clearer with that. Nevertheless, even if it was Dorner, you can't just shoot him on site unless he is actively being a threat. Otherwise, you end up with a bunch of trigger happy super troopers shooting at any vehicle/person that even remotely ressembles your suspect. CASE IN POINT - CHRIS DORNER!

3) You are responsible for the result of every bullet you fire. Even if you have a clear, deadly threat and engage him/her you still have an obligation to the community to protect, not endanger, them. Otherwise, you become just as bad, if not worse, than the threat you are trying to stop. Case in Point - NYPD Times Square Shooting, Hitting two innocent bystanders for a guy pointing his finger at officers



If you see nothing wrong with cops treating everyone like criminals then don't be surprised when everyone starts treating cops like jack-booted thugs.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Taku, you make a great, valid point here. Unfortunately, with budget constraints, one of the first things that cut is training. I know a lot of guys who only shoot twice a year, when our department requires them to qualify. Do I find that acceptable? Hell no. Do their scores often reflect that they don't practice? Yep.

Hard to compare law enforcement to regular shooters, though, even with myself. I shoot at least once a week, with personal firearms and the department one, often on my own dime, at a private range. Many officers, regardless of being male or female, are shooting the very same firearm, the Glock their department issues. Those don't all fit everyone's hands the same way. Not shooting often enough to become semi-proficient is a big problem. I carry a personally owned pistol, since the department I work for has a type approved list. I know I am accountable for every round that leaves the barrel, and I choose to treat that responsibility with the respect it deserves.

And as often as they shoot themselves in the feet and legs
It should turn anyone's hair white if they have them pointing their guns at them. If you look at the range histories, nearly every accident involves an LEO. Hate to say that but its true.

 

[U201491]

Taku, you make a great, valid point here. Unfortunately, with budget constraints, one of the first things that cut is training. I know a lot of guys who only shoot twice a year, when our department requires them to qualify. Do I find that acceptable? Hell no. Do their scores often reflect that they don't practice? Yep.

Hard to compare law enforcement to regular shooters, though, even with myself. I shoot at least once a week, with personal firearms and the department one, often on my own dime, at a private range. Many officers, regardless of being male or female, are shooting the very same firearm, the Glock their department issues. Those don't all fit everyone's hands the same way. Not shooting often enough to become semi-proficient is a big problem. I carry a personally owned pistol, since the department I work for has a type approved list. I know I am accountable for every round that leaves the barrel, and I choose to treat that responsibility with the respect it deserves.

With the size of the LAPD they let too many not so qualified people get hired. I think our Sheriffs dept's get better training.
I know some local LE that moved up here and they feel the same.
Special mental capabilities need be the kind of people they hire.
Its a high stress job and it isnt for the average person. I sure would not have the temperament for it.
Too low of a patience threshold.

 

[Riot]

Well, I don't like to deal with extremes as references, I leave that to the libtards. LAPD is paying out handsomely for the poor decisions made by the officers who shot up the newspaper ladies. They didn't get away with it, and I don't condone it. Under #3, and what you referenced, the language you are looking for is "be sure of your target and what's beyond it".

Nope...if anything the language I would be looking for is "never point your firearms at anything you're not willing to destroy" or in other words, don't just dump your mag in an urban setting like you're in the middle of Iraq trying to suppress a terrorist insurgent. I wouldn't be too worried about going through a person with a pistol as much as I would be about missing and hitting someone else. Police don't have the luxury to chock things off as collateral damage, you should know this...ever heard of the Priority of Life? If taking the shot means endangering an innocent civilian, you don't take the shot- you wait, assess, reevaluate and wait for an opening. Even if the threat is imminent, endangering by-standards, hostages or even other officers is never an option when neutralizing a threat.

Reading some of the responses here is just like listening to or reading some of the crap that Bloomberg, Giffords and Feinstain spew on a regular basis about gun owners. You don't know me, you've never seen me on the news, never heard of me mistreating anyone, yet you categorize me like the libtards categorize gun owners.

Hold up- you came here defending the officer's actions, nobody called you out...you did that to yourself. A firearm is used for a deadly threat or possible deadly threat...you can't point a firearm at random people without an imminent threat. This isn't Russia/China/Korea/Afghanistan/Iraq...we are citizens and we have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of not having a gun pointed in our face every time a police officers feels like it.

Ask anyone here, I will be the first to jump in an LEO's corner and defend their actions AS LONG AS IT IS JUSTIFIED.

Unless you actually know the context of the photo, what information was available at the time, and what the specific threat was, you really can't place yourself in anyone's shoes. Fact is, that finger is off the trigger in the photo. Do I know if the vehicle fit the description? The driver? No, neither do you. I just find it interesting how, on a pro-firearm forum, you will find threads like this, where the armadillo helmet wearing conspiracy guys sound just like the 3 pieces of anti-gun garbage I mentioned earlier. Have a great weekend and stay safe if you're getting the wind and stuff we are. . I'm taking the wife to the range in a little bit . .

Want to play the "what if..." game? What if there was a child in the back seat?


What I seem to find rehensible is that police forget that they serve the public, not their superiors. Police are there to ensure that everyone is safer, not ensuring it's safer for them by endangering the public.

For example...what is your opinion on "no knock warrants" for non-violent offenses?


[video=youtube_share;W-wv7rcbDLE]http://youtu.be/W-wv7rcbDLE[/video]

How about flashbanging a room without ensuring a clear area?
http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2011/12/rickia_russell_police_brutality_flashbang_grenade. php

Common sense...that's all we ask. Searching the car? Wouldn't have had a problem...even having the guy get out and sit off to the side- you're looking for a violent criminal, I get it. Then come up to the car with gun at contact ready. Heck, even popping the trunk I could see the gun up...but not for every driver dude... seriously.


Pointing the gun at everyone passing through a checkpoint when there isn't an imminent threat?

Yeah, I'll never sign off for that.


*edit*

However, I will add that the blind "yeah cops suck" posts do get a little old. Its prejudice and there are many people already on my ignore list from it.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Riot, you have a lot more patience than I do!

 

[Riot]

Riot, you have a lot more patience than I do!

Just wanted to re-iterate...