Posted on 09/13/2016 8:08:20 AM PDT by Leaning Right
We’ve tracked countless cases here where cops were able to keep their jobs after killing unarmed people, killing people after responding to the wrong house, killing people and then lying about it . . . the list goes on.
Give the Weirton, W.Va., police chief some credit. He’s come up with a new spin on the the same problem. He just fired a cop for not killing someone.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
We had a local cop die yesterday. He was a white man who died writhing on the ground in agony after being ambushed and gut-shot by a black man.
The cop didn’t fire his gun either.
But let’s all join with ESPN’s Chris Berman and Steve Young in praising Colin Kaepernick and the rest of the shit-for-brains NFL racists and celebrate “Black Lives Matter.”
In the meantime I’ll be checking that my 870 and my Glock are locked, loaded, and ready to fire.
I don't see a connection between the story of a cop who didn't shoot an unarmed nutcase with that of another cop who was ambushed and ESPN and Kaepernick. I also don't see why the cop in this story got fired, particularly with the MSM and dems demonizing cops for shooting people. In this environment, I would have made him a poster child for good police work even if I didn't agree with his actions.
I note that the perp never aimed or raised his gun at the officer.
Cops are not supposed to kill people simply for holding a gun. Cop was correct.
We’ve all held guns. What if you answered a late night knock on your door with a pistol in hand, and the person at the is is a cop? Is he allowed to kill you? I posit “no”.
Oh, and WaPo is a sack of leftist excrement.
“I saw then he had a gun, but it was not pointed at me,”
Then there was no reason to shoot the man and the cop got it right and the police chief should be fired for wanting people killed simply because they’re holding a firearm.
You really see a connection?
This cop actually had a good read on the situation and the man, who had not pointed the gun yet.
The “connection” is this:
Leftist Media/Politicians focused on BLM thugs, Kaepernick and his fellow NFL jerk-offs, and assorted race hustlers while our cops are demonized and murdered. This is not an accident this is a Marxist-inspired strategy.
Anybody waving a gun at people is asking to be shot dead. ANYBODY.
Our society is crumbling right before our eyes and I am sick of it.
If the newspaper presented the facts correctly (most often this is not the case), then I stand with the police officer, not the police chief. Suicide by cop is real. If the suspect raised his pistol toward anyone, other than himself, any of the officers on the scene would have been justified in shooting him. Whether he did that or not (raised his weapon toward anyone) is unclear, from the newspaper account. If he was shot for simply holding the weapon, but threatening no one other than himself, the officer in question should be vindicated (for making a good on the scene judgment), and the other two officers should face an internal review. Sometimes not shooting is a good shoot, so to speak. My best guess is that the newspaper did not report all of the pertinent facts, including any history this guy (the deceased) had with the local constabulary.
As others have said in the thread, he did not point the gun at anybody. If it later comes out that he did, then, yeah, he should have been shot. You don't find it a tad ironic that the only thing the guy threatened to do was kill himself, and then cops show up and blow him away?
Damned if they shoot and damned if they don’t.
That's the bottom line, in this case anyway.
Radley Balko started as a blogger and has been on this stuff for years. His primarily responsible for getting a guy off the death and ultimately released from prison for protecting himself and his daughter from death at the hands of a wrong-address raid. Cory Maye. Radley is no lefty.
“Anybody waving a gun at people is asking to be shot dead. ANYBODY.”
Does that include cops?
This is the result of the national changeover in police procedure that happened in the 1970s.
Before then, police operated under “Old West” rules as related to the use of guns. What this officer did was typical, and guns were seldom drawn, and almost always to shoot to kill.
However, after some well publicized police assassinations, the federal government encouraged police to adopt “SWAT” tactics. Unlike SWAT teams, the tactics meant frequently drawing their gun, with the idea of quickly “establishing control and dominance” of situations.
It generally did not work, in that more police were killed, and often by their own gun. But the SWAT culture still remains, which is what we saw here. “If suspect does ‘x’’, then you kill them.” Common sense and judgment do not apply.
A change back to Old West rules would have to start at the police academies, and will likely have the impulse that because our society is now armed, for the police to brandish their gun means they have *less* control and dominance in situations, and they are put at a tactical disadvantage compared to those with concealed arms who keep their guns hidden.
A change back to Old West rules would have to start at the police academies
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Cops should just shoot the gun out of the bad guy’s hand, just like in the old west movies.
Quote:
“Does that include cops?”
BLM chimes in. Jack ass.
Cops should just shoot the gun out of the bad guy’s hand, just like in the old west movies.
= = = = = = = = = =
Or just ‘carefully’ wing ‘em.
Even as a mere lad I used to get a kick out of the Sheriff and his Ally riding through the canyon, bad guys with Winchesters etc lining the ridges-not hitting a thing while the two on horseback - with six shooters, manage to either disarm or kill 30 or so ‘bad guys’ on the ridge.
Even if one could accept the ‘good guys’ picking off the bad guys while under full gallop, the reloading phase is certainly tricky.
“BLM chimes in. Jack ass.
I just asked a question. You’re the one who made the thoughtless all inclusive statement that prompted the question. Instead of recognizing your error you make two more thoughtless statements.
Such Hollywood foolishness is not what Old West rules mean. Historically, the Old West was very influential in both criminal and civil gun law.
East of the Mississippi, as well as in the slave states, gun ownership had long been associated with wealth and political power, and there had long been measures to keep guns out of the hands of the poor and freedmen.
But guns were such an important tool in the West, that the law and the lawman had to adopt the civility required in an armed society.
For example, one of the longest serving Sheriffs in Arizona retired without ever drawing his gun, though he had solved some 70 homicides resulting in arrest. When he retired, it was learned that his gun was rusted to inoperability and was fused with the leather of his holster.
Though his was an extreme example, it demonstrates that Old West rules went to lengths to *not* use guns.
A later Sheriff, in Coconino County, Arizona, had a very small jail, so when he went on his daily rounds in Flagstaff, he would bring any overflow prisoners with him. Handcuffs were unnecessary, as his reputation was of his being a deadly shot. None of them dared to run away.
In a way, this, too demonstrates Old West rules.
Criminal trials of the period established a lot of precedent about the use and misuse of guns. Likewise an essential element of Old West rules was that, to murder a lawman guaranteed a swift trial and execution.
Today, with the return of gun liberty in most of the US, SWAT rules are becoming increasingly disliked, both by the citizenry as well as the police, precisely because of gun liberty. Those who brandish their gun first put themselves at a disadvantage; and the illusion that having a gun imparts control or dominance is quickly dispelled.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.