Replies

Okay Finny, then you think officers should leave an armed man acting belligerent there and drive away.

They don't have to drive away, or maybe they should. I'd think they might stick around, depending.

The officers will instruct the individual to put the weapon down. He will put the weapon down or risk being fired on. If he moved that weapon in just about any direction other than down, he would be making a serious mistake. I think you know that.

"I did not know you were officers, I am putting the gun down. I am a law enforcement officer myself."

If you happen to be a next door neighbor and this guy gets angry enough to fire off a few rounds as the police drive off, who is at fault if one of those rounds enters your home and your daughter head is splattered against her bedroom wall?

The guy who shot the gun. That's whose fault. Notwithstanding all the legalities of suing the cops. It's quite straightforward.

You know as well as I do that officers leaving the scene of an individual with a gun prior to that person using the gun to harm others, is going to be grounds for a deacde's worth of legal court cases related to the matter. The officers, the department, and the city would be exposed to litigation

They aren’t safe doing it, and the neighbors aren’t safe if they do it either.

Now, DoughtyOne, you know that's a total crap shoot as to how "safe" people are when armed cops are around and sense a "top dog" challenge. Way too many innocents or light miscreants end up dead because somebody had the bright idea of calling the cops.

You can try to spin this every which way if you want, but officers cannot simply walk away from a guy with a loaded weapon. They will disarm the individual and work things out with them. This guy would be asked to show his badge, and identification. That's all. I'm not sure what transpired here, but we will in time.

It's the attitude you defend that is so disturbing. I see that they didn't kill the guy in this story, so at least he wasn't shot dead, which is a good thing. And it's not really even about this so much as it was your original words that just are like a red light flashing:

I wouldn’t be too quick to dump on the responding officers. This guy may have had a attitude thinking himself to be the top dog on scene. We’ll see how it plays out.

I addressed it matter of factly. What would you prefer? We will find out in time if the officers were at fault or not. I think that's a resonable thing to look forward to. I can see how it could come down against the officers. I can see how it could some down against the man coming out of his home too. We'll have to wait and see. What other choice is there?

If he was dead, you'd still be thinking the same thing as casually.

Yes, that is correct. I would still be thinking the same thing. The man's death neither proves his innocence or the officers guilt. We would still need to wait and see what the investigation reveals. Why does that bother you? It's the only rational way to approach this.

All I can say is people with that mindset, thinking for a nanosecond that someone who doesn't submit to "top dog" status of civil servants is justification for said servants to shoot or kill that someone...

I haven't said there was justification to shoot the man yet. I have provided scenarios where the guy might have made mistakes leading up to him being shot. I have also said we may find out in the end that the officers were at fault.

Instead of thinking that makes some sense, you continue to try to use my words to condemn me for not defending the man here. Why would I. A number of people have come to defend him. Why is it so unreasoned to have someone defend the officers as well? That defense will obviously stop when the officers are show to be at fault, if that happens. I'm not glad the guy got shot. I don't know now if it was justified or not. I just don't like to see officers taken to task before we know the full facts..

...are better suited to be in the military than as lawmen civil servants among free Americans.

You evidently have some kind of pie in the sky mindset that there is no need for police officers, and every citizen of the United States is above having to answer to the judicial system or it's representatives on the streets and in our society.

That is wrong. Citizens who are taken into custody by the police do not lose their Constitutional Protections. They get to utilize them to defend against prosecution.

I would rather see someone get that chance than bluster their way into a death spiral because they don't like police officers.

Whether you like it or not, officers are charged with law enforcement.

Communities got togethere, set up a govering body, and appointed people to enforce those codes. It's not some conspiracy.

If you don't like it, get your friends together, go to the city council, and demand the police department be shut down. It's your right to do this if you like.