JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Me , personally, I would like to say it's a really good idea to stay calm in any crisis situation.

Especially if you're being paid to participate.

Sure, staying calm in a crisis is ideal, but that pesky component called humanity steps in every now and again. People make mistakes. Pressure situations increase the odds of making a mistake.

I'm a big fan of following commands when cops are shouting at me. They carry guns and stuff.
 
Sure, staying calm in a crisis is ideal, but that pesky component called humanity steps in every now and again. People make mistakes. Pressure situations increase the odds of making a mistake.

I'm a big fan of following commands when cops are shouting at me. They carry guns and stuff.

Following LE commands is likely to be "common knowledge" for many of us, but the fact that they carry "guns and stuff" shouldn't be the prevailing motivation. Meaning I don't think LE should be "feared" or looked at as "do what I say or die" type of thing. They work for US, not the other way around.
 
Following LE commands seems to be "common knowledge" for many of us, but the fact that they carry "guns and stuff" shouldn't be the prevailing motivation. Meaning I don't think LE should be "feared" or looked at as "do what I say or die" type of thing. They work for US, not the other way around.

Hmmm, do what I say or die...

Of the people shot by cops, how many didn't do what the cop said? All of them?
 
Hmmm, do what I say or die...

Of the people shot by cops, how many didn't do what the cop said? All of them?


Last I heard lethal force is SUPPOSED to be used ONLY when someone's life is in immediate danger, not just because someone doesn't comply.


In this case, the deceased was unarmed and wasn't trying to run over LE with the vehicle. I don't see anywhere in that video where LE lives or the public's are in immediate danger. Hence the less-than-lethal taser deployment that ended up being a Glock.
 
In this case, the deceased was unarmed and wasn't trying to run over LE with the vehicle.
If she'd intentionally shot him, I'd be OK with calling it justified. Armed robber was diving for place where he'd previously been storing his robbing gun. But she didn't shoot him intentionally, so it's probably manslaughter. Whatever, I'll never find myself on either side of this scenario so my concern is very muted.
 
Last I heard lethal force is SUPPOSED to be used ONLY when someone's life is in immediate danger, not just because someone doesn't comply.

Sadly, after being told hear by a few and some brief research on the matter, it seams standard police protocols are to have weapons drawn in a felony type situation. Even if zero threat of life is present to officers.
 
Last I heard lethal force is SUPPOSED to be used ONLY when someone's life is in immediate danger, not just because someone doesn't comply.


In this case, the deceased was unarmed and wasn't trying to run over LE with the vehicle. I don't see anywhere in that video where LE lives or the public's are in immediate danger. Hence the less-than-lethal taser deployment that ended up being a Glock.

'It's my understanding that she meant to use her Taser, not her handgun. In other words, she wanted to use less than lethal force. Is this not correct?

The problem, of course, is that she apparently mistook her handgun for her Taser. As I see it, she meant to Taser him, not shoot him. Is this not correct?

Edit to add, where would the perp be, right now, if he had obeyed the officer's commands instead of fighting and attempting to flee? In jail, or in the morgue?



P
 
Policing with one hand on the gun sends a message that I personally don't appreciate. I absolutely support LE and often wear shirts to show it BTW.


BUT......I certainly don't and will not support drawing guns at every stop.

This thread amuses me, I have read HUNDREDS of posts here at NWFA from people bashing cops. Anything from personal interaction to the Bundy's. Yet here we are with so many people ready to call this justified without even questioning it. Hell no.
 
How does a cop know, in advance, if there's zero threat?
Of course he or she does not know. But this is where experience, intuition and awareness, along with high tech help need to be utilized and relied upon.

Otherwise what is the alternative? Approaching every traffic stop as full on felony stop with everybody spread eagle on the ground?
 
I had an AD once. It happens. Wasn't an ND.
Don't mean to argue semantics, but if you adhere to the rules of firearm safety, there is no such thing as an accidental discharge. An unintended discharge can only be a negligent one according to the Four Rules. If you consider it accidental, then you were not following the Four Rules, and legally, any discharge would still be considered negligent. You own that bullet until it stops, whether you meant to fire it or not.
 
Don't mean to argue semantics, but if you adhere to the rules of firearm safety, there is no such thing as an accidental discharge. An unintended discharge can only be a negligent one according to the Four Rules. If you consider it accidental, then you were not following the Four Rules, and legally, any discharge would still be considered negligent. You own that bullet until it stops, whether you meant to fire it or not.
I was out shooting with a fellow my ex-wife's good friend had just married. He asked me if I'd shoot his rifle. I said sure. As I pointed the rifle downrange and closed the bolt, it fired accidentally. It had not done that during my cursory inspection when it was unloaded.

He fancied himself a gunsmith, it turns out.

I consider that accidental and not negligent. How would you classify it?
 
I'd like to correct Atty. Crumps incorrect assertation that "Driving while Black continues to result in a death sentence."

It should read "Driving while Black, with expired registration, being identified as a felon with an active warrant for attempted armed robbery, resisting arrest and fleeing from police, continues to result in a death sentence"

Mr. Crump, if your going to make statements and accusations, at least be inclusive, factual and accurate...
This point of course needs to be repeated every time the racial grievance industry rears its ugly head to monetize the disproportionate tragic loss of life in the African American diaspora. Unfortunately such factual truths rarely get beyond private forums such as these with almost every one of us reflexively nodding in agreement. I literally thought your post in my mind when I heard the race hustler Crump utter that toxic fallacy with the useful idiots in the media genuflecting to the point of self flagellation. I refuse to believe that intelligent people of rational good will don't see these acerbic statements for the lies they are so their complicity is intentional and frankly evidence of malice. Their refusal to challenge these nefarious lies is tantamount to them pulling the trigger themselves. Thank you for your excellent post.
 
Question for those defending the driver. What if she had tazed him and he died from being tazed (it's rare but happens). Would you still be defending the driver. Should she have asked him if he wanted to be taken into to custody and then let him go if he declined?
 
I was out shooting with a fellow my ex-wife's good friend had just married. He asked me if I'd shoot his rifle. I said sure. As I pointed the rifle downrange and closed the bolt, it fired accidentally. It had not done that during my cursory inspection when it was unloaded.

He fancied himself a gunsmith, it turns out.

I consider that accidental and not negligent. How would you classify it?
Now you're talking about a malfunction. I would not call that an accidental or negligent discharge. That said, had your unintended discharge led to property damage or injury, sadly you would be at the least held liable - and likely your friend the "gunsmith." Sounds like none of that happened -- glad to hear.
 
Question for those defending the driver. What if she had tazed him and he died from being tazed (it's rare but happens). Would you still be defending the driver. Should she have asked him if he wanted to be taken into to custody and then let him go if he declined?

No. If she had tased him and he died from it I don't think this would be much of a story. But she didn't tase him. Your second question is obviously rhetorical, or at least I hope it is.
 
Thought provoking question.

If some here believe it is ok for police to use firearms without the presence of a threat of life threatening act, how is that different from red flag laws that remove a gun from someone when no threat or life threatening act has yet been established?
 
Thought provoking question.

If some here believe it is ok for police to use firearms without the presence of a threat of life threatening act, how is that different from red flag laws that remove a gun from someone when no threat or life threatening act has yet been established?

It's not. There is a level of hypocrisy in this thread that I'm not smart enough to describe properly.
 

Upcoming Events

Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Oregon Arms Collectors April 2024 Gun Show
Portland, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top