Minnesota, here we go again. I'm betting ammo/gun sales are brisk

[Knobgoblin]

Are we in agreement that large police departments are only going to have a harder and harder time doing their job in this current climate? And do you feel the situation is only going to get worse?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Are we in agreement that large police departments are only going to have a harder and harder time doing their job in this current climate? And do you feel the situation is only going to get worse?

Yes, I agree with that statement.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Okay, do you think a solution will be offered to this problem?

Will "police reform " just be another slogan for getting elected, or is it really going to be approached rationally and with sincerity?

 

[Dinglenutz]

It's like 2016 all over again. Inventory is at historic lows, prices are skyrocketing,

So an excellent time for reasonable taxpayers to GTFO then.

The logical conclusion to your argument is that he was right to discharge a firearm into the face of another human being at point blank range.

I disagree, I see this line of reasoning is the mirror image of the "judge jury and executioner" argument fielded by the people who think people resisting arrest should never get hurt. In my opinion, the command should not have been lawful because a reasonable purpose was never articulated in a situation where there was ample time to do so. The threat of bodily harm (Taser) escalated the situation foolishly, also my opinion.

I've read COUNTLESS posts here on NWFA about not complying with new gun laws.

Not from me. I will always comply with the letter of the law.

None of which changes the fact that the subject shot the police officer in the face at a range of two feet. We can infer from this that the dude was being pursued for a lawful reason.

No, I can't infer that.

Take the uniform out of the equation, and is it OK to shoot someone who is already pointing a Taser at you? I would, although putting the uniform back into the equation - I would not. The uniform adds context that would otherwise be lacking, but it's wrong to give an officer the right to issue orders without stating a reason in circumstances like this. The order should be obeyed, and then the officer should be subject to censure for violating a citizens rights. That's the civil way to do this.

Also he should have had his firearm out - there's an armed criminal in the area.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

Okay, do you think a solution will be offered to this problem?

Will "police reform " just be another slogan for getting elected, or is it really going to be approached rationally and with sincerity?

Not sure I see the relevance to the topic?

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

So an excellent time for reasonable taxpayers to GTFO then.



I disagree, I see this line of reasoning is the mirror image of the "judge jury and executioner" argument fielded by the people who think people resisting arrest should never get hurt. In my opinion, the command should not have been lawful because a reasonable purpose was never articulated in a situation where there was ample time to do so. The threat of bodily harm (Taser) escalated the situation foolishly, also my opinion.


Not from me. I will always comply with the letter of the law.


No, I can't infer that.

Take the uniform out of the equation, and is it OK to shoot someone who is already pointing a Taser at you? I would, although putting the uniform back into the equation - I would not. The uniform adds context that would otherwise be lacking, but it's wrong to give an officer the right to issue orders without stating a reason in circumstances like this. The order should be obeyed, and then the officer should be subject to censure for violating a citizens rights. That's the civil way to do this.

Also he should have had his firearm out - there's an armed criminal in the area.

I'm afraid you're still missing the point. The video has nothing to do with the lawfulness of the encounter. It was posted to illustrate why officers give commands to citizens such as "show me your hands." Cops generally have no idea who they're dealing with so to preserve their own lives they need to maintain command of the situation to the extent possible. That is the point. This is what I mean when I say "THIS IS WHY WE COMPLY."

 

[slimmer13]

I've read COUNTLESS posts here on NWFA about not complying with new gun laws. Even I've said it. Ive read where members have even said there will be lots of blood spilled if LE shows up to collect guns door to door. LOTS of this talk of non compliance. And I agree.

But then we have this thread, where some of those very same members are saying compliance is necessary and would have saved his life.

My hypocrisy only goes so far.

Not sure what's confusing or hypocritical. If at anytime, you decide the law of the land is too unjust to bear, and you decide not to comply, if may, at some point put you at odds with those tasked with enforcing those laws. If at that time, you decide to physically resist, the chances of something bad happening to you goes up.

Whether taking those risks are worth it for you for car registration or full blown door to door gun confiscation, they are the same.

Because some may agree to comply for car registration enforcement, it doesn't make them hypocrites for saying they wont comply with gun confiscation enforcement. It means they have a different "line in the sand".

 

[Kruel J]

Not sure what's confusing or hypocritical. If at anytime, you decide the law of the land is too unjust to bear, and you decide not to comply, if may, at some point put you at odds with those tasked with enforcing those laws. If at that time, you decide to physically resist, the chances of something bad happening to you goes up.

Whether taking those risks are worth it for you for car registration or full blown door to door gun confiscation, they are the same.

Because some may agree to comply for car registration enforcement, it doesn't make them hypocrites for saying they wont comply with gun confiscation enforcement. It means they have a different "line in the sand".

Totally agree.

 

[Dinglenutz]

It was posted to illustrate why officers give commands to citizens such as "show me your hands." Cops generally have no idea who they're dealing with so to preserve their own lives they need to maintain command of the situation to the extent possible

I don't find that very interesting or morally defensible. Barking orders at someone without prior sufficient cause to arrest them or articulating a reason first should be illegal. Police or not. On the other side, non-compliance with those orders seems foolish. The correct situation is to comply, and then decide who if anyone is getting a citation after.

 

[Knobgoblin]

Trying to get a bigger picture going.

I think I'm failing at this

 

[RVTECH]

Okay, do you think a solution will be offered to this problem?

I'll bet anybody a bottle of their favorite we will eventually hear the words 'National Police force', 'Universal police force' or something to this effect but the gist will be for a Nationwide, Government funded 'Police force'.

 

[Kruel J]

I'll bet anybody a bottle of their favorite we will eventually hear the words 'National Police force', 'Universal police force' or something to this effect but the gist will be for a Nationwide, Government funded 'Police force'.

And UN backed. I won't take your bet.

 

[Dinglenutz]

I'll bet anybody a bottle of their favorite we will eventually hear the words 'National Police force', 'Universal police force' or something to this effect but the gist will be for a Nationwide, Government funded 'Police force'.

Maybe we could be like the Philippines, and have an "NBI", but we don't want to just copy them. How about we call it the FBI instead?

 

[Knobgoblin]

I'm afraid you're still missing the point. The video has nothing to do with the lawfulness of the encounter. It was posted to illustrate why officers give commands to citizens such as "show me your hands." Cops generally have no idea who they're dealing with so to preserve their own lives they need to maintain command of the situation to the extent possible. That is the point. This is what I mean when I say "THIS IS WHY WE COMPLY."

I understand where you are coming from completely.
Unfortunately for any paid, uniformed security personnel..MY freedom is more important to me than their safety.

You will find many on this site that understand ,choosing freedom over security is accepting personal responsibility for one's own safety.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I don't find that very interesting or morally defensible. Barking orders at someone without prior sufficient cause to arrest them or articulating a reason first should be illegal. Police or not. On the other side, non-compliance with those orders seems foolish. The correct situation is to comply, and then decide who if anyone is getting a citation after.

Still missing the point. Have a good one.

 

[Knobgoblin]

This is where the place you live changes your ability to be free and still relatively safe.
Police in my town would be unlikely to be shot by an armed robbery suspect.
Therefore it seems unlikely that they go around barking at local citizens .

I chose to live in a town where armed criminal activity is rare. This may change over time, and I'd move again.
I'm not about to surrender my freedom for the sake of security in areas where I don't have to live.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I understand where you are coming from completely.
Unfortunately for any paid, uniformed security personnel..MY freedom is more important to me than their safety.

You will find many on this site that understand ,choosing freedom over security is accepting personal responsibility for one's own safety.

For better or worse, we have rules in a civilized society. One of those rules is that you obey the duly-enacted laws — as my freedom to swing my fist stops at the tip of your nose. When a citizen chooses to disobey the duly-enacted laws, we the people impose consequences. One of the consequences is possible physical detention and confinement in accordance with the severity of the transgression. As you just stated above the value you place on your personal freedom, apprehending people who wish not to lose theirs is a dangerous business. We task agents of the state with apprehending these people, and we provide them with training and equipment to insure to the best of our ability that these transgressors are lawfully detained with the least risk to life, liberty, and property. We also authorize these agents to use physical force — up to and including lethal — to accomplish this end. We also authorize these agents to issue lawful commands to further minimize the risk and contain any potential threat. If a cop tells you to keep your hands visible, for example, that is not an assault on your freedom. If a cop wants to get home to his or her family at the end of each shift, they must view you as a potential threat until they can establish to their satisfaction you are not.

If you value your freedom, the best course of action is to obey the duly-enacted laws. You may also work to change them if you feel they are unjust. However, if you are in violation of the law prepare to accept the consequences. It is a fallacy to suggest force is justified on your part in "defense of your liberty" if you are under lawful apprehension to answer for your transgression of the duly-enacted laws.

 

[Kruel J]

The cop meant to tase him but made a rookie mistake and killed him. She knows it. She says it. All the discussion in the world won't change that.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

I'll bet anybody a bottle of their favorite we will eventually hear the words 'National Police force', 'Universal police force' or something to this effect but the gist will be for a Nationwide, Government funded 'Police force'.

Like when I lived in the Peoples' Republic of China.

 

[GripItAndRipIt]

The cop meant to tase him but made a rookie mistake and killed him. She knows it. She says it. All the discussion in the world won't change that.

A 26-year veteran of the force making a rookie mistake. Here we can agree. As I have stated numerous times having handled handguns for four decades and having a few opportunities to handle Tasers, I cannot understand how one could be mistook for the other. Coupled with department policy that places the Taser on the nondominant side of the duty belt, it is a mistake of biblical proportion. That said, I believe it was a mistake and she negligently discharged her firearm. I don't believe for a minute she intended to kill that citizen.