Denver PD commit mass shooting

[Member 3687]

Very few politicians have LE security

This may be true but many have privet security that are exempt in many of these laws as well. Funny how that works.

 

[RX-79G]

This may be true but many have privet security that are exempt in many of these laws as well. Funny how that works.

In a way that other security guards are not?

 

[Member 3687]

does the term 'statist' come to mind

 

[The Heretic]

I cannot speak for anyone else just my self and like I said in another post I will wait for the jury or the report to see if it was justified and hope it was all done correctly.

How do you justify shooting bystanders?

 

[RX-79G]

How do you justify shooting bystanders?

It isn't justifiable and the city will be liable for it. That is different than saying the officers acted with criminal intent.

 

[Member 3687]

How do you justify shooting bystanders?

I do not but I have to agree with

It isn't justifiable and the city will be liable for it. That is different than saying the officers acted with criminal intent.

If it isn't justifiable then they need to fry but I was not there and I did not see how it all went down, all I see is the current video and currently in my mind it was not justified, but until the investigation is complete all I have is a one sided story.

We are still presumed innocent until proven guilty, or at least I hope.

 

[Member 3687]

We are still presumed innocent until proven guilty, or at least I hope.

How do you justify shooting bystanders?

I only say this because we do not know the whole story, the gentleman being shot could have been a serial killer, just planted a bomb or capable of doing any number of bad things and by doing what they did it may have save lives.

I doubt it but do you know for a fact what happen.

 

[American123]

Police don't "just protect themselves". They force compliance in a way we don't.

Very few politicians have LE security

Now please use the word 'statist' eight times to dismiss my post while failing to address my points.

When you live as a statist, hearing the word shouldn't be so annoying, unless it's in a state of denial. Makes sense.

"All men are created equal" is part of the founding documents of this country. There are many ways to address this ridiculous notion that the government and its actors should have rights that people do not, however, listing them is pointless to someone who seems incapable of understanding why having different rights/rules for government actors, or citizens, is a problem that is incongruent with the ideals of this nation.

 

[American123]

Police don't "just protect themselves". They force compliance in a way we don't.

Very few politicians have LE security

Now please use the word 'statist' eight times to dismiss my post while failing to address my points.

And another thing. Police are not allowed to use lethal force unless it is in defense of their life or the life of others.

A gun is not a compliance tool and your interpretation of why police have guns is entirely inaccurate.

 

[The Heretic]

I only say this because we do not know the whole story, the gentleman being shot could have been a serial killer, just planted a bomb or capable of doing any number of bad things and by doing what they did it may have save lives.

I doubt it but do you know for a fact what happen.

I am usually willing to wait for more info because that is usually prudent.

In this case though, my knee jerk response is that the LEOs shot a bunch of innocent people.

I am not sure how anyone can justify that, regardless of what the "suspect" did (and it is questionable whether the suspect did anything illegal).

 

[RX-79G]

When you live as a statist, hearing the word shouldn't be so annoying, unless it's in a state of denial. Makes sense.

But im not a statist, no one here is qualified to label me, and you guys spend the rest of the time arguing that the things I want to see changed are wrong.


There is something wonderfully dystopian about being called a statist by a bunch of conservatives. However, I realize it is nothing more than a defaming personal attack because so many here can't go to a website or read a law.

 

[RX-79G]

And another thing. Police are not allowed to use lethal force unless it is in defense of their life or the life of others.

A gun is not a compliance tool and your interpretation of why police have guns is entirely inaccurate.

A cop can shoot an armed mrderer running away from him. You cannot.

 

[Old Dog]

I am not sure how anyone can justify that,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but has someone, anyone (Bueller?) in this thread attempted to justify the officers shooting into a crowd?

Can't speak to Denver PD's use of deadly force policy, but every deadly force policy I've worked under specifically warns that officers must ensure a clear field of fire.

Does it even really need to be addressed that the officers' actions (if the reporting is at all accurate) appear to be totally inexcusable.

While they may not be held criminally liable (although, this being the post-Floyd era, it's entirely possible), the city certainly will be held civilly (and financially) liable. The officers will lose their jobs, hopefully never being hired in law enforcement again. At a minimum.

Police are not allowed to use lethal force unless it is in defense of their life or the life of others.

Not quite.

One local agency's policy:

Deadly force may only be used in circumstances where a threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others is imminent. A danger is imminent when an objectively reasonable officer would believe that:

- A suspect is acting or threatening to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others; and

- The suspect has the means or instrumentalities to do so; and

- The suspect has the opportunity and ability to use the means or instrumentalities to cause death or serious physical injury.

 

[The Heretic]

A cop can shoot an armed mrderer running away from him. You cannot.

The rules used to be a bit closer to the current rules for civilians; back in the late 70s, when I was a federal LEO, the policy & lethal force training, was that a LEO could not shoot a felon running away unless you had probable cause that the felon was on their way to do imminent physical harm to an innocent.

Now it seems that it is not unheard of for LEOs to shoot unarmed people suspected of misdemeanors, who are running away from LEOs, and not suffering any consequences.

 

[American123]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but has someone, anyone (Bueller?) in this thread attempted to justify the officers shooting into a crowd?

Can't speak to Denver PD's use of deadly force policy, but every deadly force policy I've worked under specifically warns that officers must ensure a clear field of fire.

Does it even really need to be addressed that the officers' actions (if the reporting is at all accurate) appear to be totally inexcusable.

While they may not be held criminally liable (although, this being the post-Floyd era, it's entirely possible), the city certainly will be held civilly (and financially) liable. The officers will lose their jobs, hopefully never being hired in law enforcement again. At a minimum.


Not quite.

One local agency's policy:

Deadly force may only be used in circumstances where a threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others is imminent. A danger is imminent when an objectively reasonable officer would believe that:

- A suspect is acting or threatening to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others; and

- The suspect has the means or instrumentalities to do so; and

- The suspect has the opportunity and ability to use the means or instrumentalities to cause death or serious physical injury.

That's a wordy way of saying what I already said.

 

[American123]

A cop can shoot an armed mrderer running away from him. You cannot.

That's definitely a grey area and not as one way or another as you are presenting. The specifics of the situation would make immense difference in legality or not.

Also, the cop would only be able to legally use lethal force if it was reasonable to believe the "murderer" had intent, and ability to be a harm to others. There are "murderers" who have gone to prison and got back out, time served, if they run away from police at a traffic stop, the cop can't just gun them down.

These just a few holes in your absolute statement.

But im not a statist, no one here is qualified to label me, and you guys spend the rest of the time arguing that the things I want to see changed are wrong.


There is something wonderfully dystopian about being called a statist by a bunch of conservatives. However, I realize it is nothing more than a defaming personal attack because so many here can't go to a website or read a law.

Advocating for different rules/laws for people based on being in the government, or not in the government, is by definition. A statist notion.

It's like me calling the sky blue, it's a fact, not a label I am assigning it.

 

[RX-79G]

That's definitely a grey area and not as one way or another as you are presenting. The specifics of the situation would make immense difference in legality or not.

Also, the cop would only be able to legally use lethal force if it was reasonable to believe the "murderer" had intent, and ability to be a harm to others. There are "murderers" who have gone to prison and got back out, time served, if they run away from police at a traffic stop, the cop can't just gun them down.

These just a few holes in your absolute statement.


Advocating for different rules/laws for people based on being in the government, or not in the government, is by definition. A statist notion.

It's like me calling the sky blue, it's a fact, not a label I am assigning it.

That isnt what I did. I drew a very clear line between people and agencies. Giving a cop a machinegun is not granting them more rights any more than giving a CDC scientist access to smallpox.

 

[American123]

That isnt what I did. I drew a very clear line between people and agencies. Giving a cop a machinegun is not granting them more rights any more than giving a CDC scientist access to smallpox.

The cop is an actor of the state. This constant consolidation of power continues to erode individual rights and the state continues to retain the rights that they have taken away from individuals.

The state is also comprised of people obviously, but there is a distinction between those in government, and those not. Different rules for different groups.

A cop's needs for self defense are not greater than the aggregate need of the civilian populace.

 

[RX-79G]

The cop is an actor of the state. This constant consolidation of power continues to erode individual rights and the state continues to retain the rights that they have taken away from individuals.

The state is also comprised of people obviously, but there is a distinction between those in government, and those not. Different rules for different groups.

A cop's needs for self defense are not greater than the aggregate need of the civilian populace.

Again, it isnt just self defence. I can't keep reexplaining that to you.

 

[American123]

Again, it isnt just self defence. I can't keep reexplaining that to you.

It's not what you portray it to be either. I don't put any stock in opinions of someone who believes that state actors need more rights than citizens, and therefore it is justifiable to restrict the rights of citizens and exempt state actors.