That is exactly why they were mentionedI assume they were mentioned because if officer #3 ran off like a little girl as officer #1 did, his long guns would have been accessible the knife wielding psycho.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is exactly why they were mentionedI assume they were mentioned because if officer #3 ran off like a little girl as officer #1 did, his long guns would have been accessible the knife wielding psycho.
Maybe you meant this event?
Murder of Kitty Genovese - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Aloha, Mark
PS.....look up/search: Duty To Protect
There is plenty of real case history to read about.
I'm not sure what you are implying by your P.S. suggesting looking up case law as it seems very straightforward that police have no duty to protect individuals based on any basic internet search done.
That is exactly why they were mentioned
That was quoted in the article, as well as LEO comment in the video. I think the department trying to add more justification for the use of deadly force. As if being threatened verbally by an advancing knife wielding miscreant isn't sufficient justification.So, MY question is: who is saying it was to protect the long guns? Was it an ignorant reporter, a LEO, or just members here espousing a THEORY???
That was quoted in the article, as well as LEO comment in the video. I think the department trying to add more justification for the use of deadly force. As if being threatened verbally by an advancing knife wielding miscreant isn't sufficient justification.
Well I know they are locked most of the time.Thanx for the info! (I didn't read the accompanying article and never have my sound on because, you know, WIFE!!!)
So the dept is doing CYA, cuz nobody knows any better, and reporter repeats what he hears from them. GOLDEN!!!
That dude is a Marine. Doing more than any of the cops in that city.
The "PS part"......
Is/Was in an effort to inform people/get people more interested......
In reading.......about the complex subject.
Because, no matter what.......just like suing gun manufacturers.......there are lawsuits AND the outcomes can vary widely.
Note that even a settlement (especially large ones) can be seen as a VICTORY to some people.
Aloha, Mark
PS.....to expand on the case you mentioned. "Special Relationship".
Consider.....
"When do/does the police have (or have created) that SPECIAL relationship?"
Example: Say that a woman frequently calls the police to report abuse. Say sometimes if/whenever.......her sometimes abusive boyfriend (or ex-) has come around? Yet, the police do not follow through with an arrest. Mostly due to the subject having already fled the area or a "lack" of resources or a commitment to see the original complaint through.
This is what the first cop should have done.
Yep I don't know if all of them do .Stupid they carry on an empty chamber though.
Tickling is what tasers are for.
Again some run and leave the wounded guy to fend for himself!!! WTF!!!This is what the first cop should have done.
I think they where running away because they knew what was coming.Again some run and leave the wounded guy to fend for himself!!! WTF!!!
Well I know they are locked most of the time.
But remember the seattle riots those kids got in a SPD car and got the rifle.
If it wasn't for the security with the news crew they would have got away with it.