- Messages
- 4,004
- Reactions
- 11,416
The article says six were injured and in the article it confirms that three were shot. Do we know if the other three were actually shot or were they "injured" because they fell down or something?
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.
I am sorry to sound cold but if you cant do the job nobody is forcing you to stay in it.So just how many felony arrests have you made? How many bad actors have you caused to become incarcerated? How many family members and gang associates of the criminals you deal with on a daily basis would light you up on sight? Do you work a job where you have to have total focus and your head on a swivel for ten to sixteen hours a shift, not only because of the asshats that want to do you harm, but the asshats driving on the roads you patrol? Are you subject to mandatory overtime up to another eight hours every single shift you work? Trust me, if anyone needs to be exempted from some of the more stupid new gun laws in our states, it's the serving LEOs. Doesn't make any of this crap right, but let's even the playing field just a little in favor of the good guys, eh?
Employees that work for government agencies don't have extra rights - they are performing a work function when they use or carry weapons as an extension of what that agency does.
There's a big difference between when an LEO pulls the trigger and when we do.
This is where I got it from and is there a big difference between when an LEO pulls the trigger and when we do?Where do you come up with this?
I dunno about that particular incident, but it's certainly within the realm of believable. Now that bodycam footage is such a big thing, I'm often amazed at the sheer blind dumb luck that there are not more friendly fire incidents. It also makes you wonder how many might occur but never make it into public view... don't it(?)Wasn't there some shooting in NYC 20-30 years ago with all sorts of cops shooting and dodging bullets and in the investigation later they determined that those bullets the police were dodging were from each other and the perp was unarmed?
The problem with this statement is that the police don't exempt themselves. Lawmakers create the exemptions, the exemptions apply to the role of LE (not individuals), and the exemptions don't apply to the people who created them.It's always interesting to see the statists come out. "They are part of the government so they need additional opportunities/rights/protections that the rest if the citizenry doesn't. "
This type of thinking is why every gun control law in the history if this nation exists. Oh, would you look at that, government personnel are exempt from most of them. Obviously if government entities have the foresight to exempt themselves from laws, they understand them to be infringements on their ability/right to keep and bear arms.
Because you don't bother exempting yourself from something that doesn't have a negative impact on you.
Logic…
The problem with this statement is that there are no laws that I am aware of (maybe there is?) that state a LE officer has immunity if they shoot an innocent bystander that poses no threat to an officer or others.The problem with this statement is that the police don't exempt themselves. Lawmakers create the exemptions...
Then you are unaware of qualified immunity.The problem with this statement is that there are no laws that I am aware of (maybe there is?) that state a LE officer has immunity if they shoot an innocent bystander that poses no threat to an officer or others.
Who is "they"? The members of a grand jury, who are private citizens like yourself? The lawmakers, who have nothing to do with this process?They simply choose not to charge or prosecute them.
If you understood the law of what qualified immunity's intent and letter of law, then you would be aware of how it has been abused by those entrusted with enforcing law to provide umbrella protections that it did not intend. Rather, chosing to turn a blind eye instead and claiming qualified immunity.Then you are unaware of qualified immunity
You just can't help yourself can you. Gotta get those "digs" in....(It is so interesting to see gun forums migrate from banning anyone who criticizes LE to essentially repeating the rhetoric of BLM. But conservatives are constantly reinventing themselves.)
You didnt say criminal immunity, did you?Most importantly, qualifed immunity only applies to civil lawsuits and does NOT protect against criminal prosecution.
And even when it does end up before the Grand Jury, citizens usually find officers were acting in line with the law and Department guidelines.If you knew how a grand jury works, then you would also know it's not up to the people on that grand jury to choses the cases put before them for consideration.
Sorry. You got one reply from me and that's my troll feeding limit for the day. (I'm learning )Why don't you go back and change what you meant to say (but didn't) again?
Derrrrrrr.
I guess the conversation changes when you watch officers not doing much at Sandy Hook, Uvalde and see several videos like the one this thread is about, and then are reminded that they do not have to help you and many, not all, we have seen won't or are ordered not to, an order they chose to follow. So, one wonders what other orders are they willing to follow.(It is so interesting to see gun forums migrate from banning anyone who criticizes LE to essentially repeating the rhetoric of BLM. But conservatives are constantly reinventing themselves.)
But this thread is definitely calling for the punishment of specific officers for what amounts incompetence or simple error. Not policy or the policy makers.I guess the conversation changes when you watch officers not doing much at Sandy Hook, Uvalde and see several videos like the one this thread is about, and then are reminded that they do not have to help you and many, not all, we have seen won't or are ordered not to, an order they chose to follow. So, one wonders what other orders are they willing to follow.
It may not sound like it but I do support my local law enforcement and I know a number of them personally and I have shot competition with others and feel they are doing a good job for our community.
I also understand many departments are under staffed and under funded thanks to our politicians but where does that leave me and my family, un protected and having to defend myself as there is no one else I can count on.
I know crime is up, even where I live and if your busy stopping a bad crime, you're not there to help me, that's just a fact.
My beef is not with the street cops its with the politicians and leadership who feel I should not have the tools to protect my self, yet feel it important for the city or state to have the tools to protect itself. Who are they protecting itself from, Me, my family the town folk they say they are protecting.
I am lucky as I currently live in a state that does not limit my ability to have what my local law enforcement has. I wish to keep it this way and am willing to speak up every chance I have to protect all our rights.
So, if this makes me think like BLM then so be it, because until things change many states are becoming police states whether you like it or not.
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.But this thread is definitely calling for the punishment of specific officers for what amounts incompetence or simple error. Not policy or the policy makers.
Still advocating for different rules simply by the distinction of working for the state or not. Still statist in belief, regardless.The problem with this statement is that the police don't exempt themselves. Lawmakers create the exemptions, the exemptions apply to the role of LE (not individuals), and the exemptions don't apply to the people who created them.
Being given a larger magazine for work is not some sort of right. Having protections because the criteria for your use of lethal force are totally different than private citizens' is not a protection that shields an individual officer as much as it prevents police forces from being decimated by activism.
Police don't "just protect themselves". They force compliance in a way we don't.Still advocating for different rules simply by the distinction of working for the state or not. Still statist in belief, regardless.
Politicians who pass these laws often have armed security by the very people they are giving exemptions too. It is still the government saying, "we need this right, you don't." And that insinuation also simultaneously projects their belief that they are more important than other Americans.
Trying to argue otherwise doesn't really prove anything other than how well statism has deceived people that it isn't statism.
Police carry guns to protect themselves while they enforce the law. People don't have any less "right" to protect themselves, and saying the police need "more firepower" than civilians to protect themselves simply because they are the police and acting for the state is again, statist…