Posted on 11/24/2009 9:29:36 AM PST by DCBryan1
This is more of the same crap that brought us the pathetic LEO "response" to the Columbine massacre: Establish a perimiter and let the shooters go on shooting.
A police officer should neutralize the threat in order to keep everyone safe. Doing nothing during the commission of a violent crime might keep the officer safe in the short run, but it increases the threat to the public and only encourages criminals in the long run.
Would the officer have considered doing something after the robbers shot someone in the head?
"Oh, maybe I should try to stop them now."
He's very lucky nobody was killed while he stood by.
“if they started”!!! the best defense is OFFENSE. At the point they “start” executing” someone is rather too late for the ones being “executed” would not you say? A reasonable person would assume that if thugs are raiding your location, shooting or not, you should be in fear for your life (ability, opportunity, imminent probablity=lethal threat).
While the details are rather sketchy in this account, the off duty LEO made a choice- but either way, recall that the SCOTUS indicated rather firmly that even if the cop was on duty, in uniform, he was under no specific legal requirement to do anything, rather just “in general”(you cannot sue a cop or other gov employee for not doing “anything”, but only for doing the “wrong” thing)
That is the problem here; the true “posse commitatus” is the avergage Joe or Jill, not the government or any of its employees.
Molon Labe
This post and the first two sentences should have been the first one.
Just to clear things up:
“I’d rather not risk life for the evening take at the pizza parlor”
Here I was guessing what the cop was thinking. Let robbers take the money and leave.
“I bet they get caught anyway.”
Here I was saying what I thought. There was no need to take down the robbers in the pizza shop.
“This post and the first two sentences should have been the first one”
I’m not sure to which posts you’re referring.
No one got killed. Good enough for me.
Amen to that.
“I don’t think this incident can automatically be branded as cowardice.”
Didn’t. I mentioned two other incidents. It could very well have been the result of the policeman following (bad) procedure.
“Nope, don’t know what you’ve seen or who you are.
HOWEVER, you weren’t there, you don’t know the lay of the restaurant, or the circumstances other than what you’ve read. Pretty simple.”
It is pretty simple to say that.
Shouting about “talking,” by way of discrediting a person rather than his arguments, is just uncalled for.
“Does it occur to you that he may be referring to the cops thought process and not the perps?”
Didn’t want to think that. It would reflect very poorly on the policeman.
Thank you!
“We have, however, seen what you’ve written. You’re very confident about what should have happened. You are indeed very free with your comments about what others should have done in any given situation.”
So, are we to presume that you are not confident of your opinions? Or is confidence a privilege to be restricted to yourself? (Always use the plural pronoun, to give the impression that one is speaking for a large group.)
“I suppose that we are meant to imagine, from the knowing tone of your comments, that your shirt bulges with muscles and chest hair, and that you can kill with your eyebrows.”
To be effective, a flame must have some connection with the truth, however tenuous. There is nothing in the use of firearms that presupposes any physical attributes beyond those required to aim and pull the trigger.
“Oh, what a pity you were not there to stop the bad guys with a well aimed handful of pocket lint, which is a deadly weapon in your hands.”
Ah, yes, it is patently obvious that having an opinion on social policy re the treatment of criminals demonstrates that one is a Walter Mitty. Oh, dear me, I’ve been outed.
I guess I could wait until you express an opinion and then chime in with a flame alleging that only a...well, some sort of discreditable individual...would express such an opinion, and objecting to the degree of confidence that I pretend to see in your comments, but I have better things to do with my time.
And to play me off the stage, Thomas Sowell: “It is amazing how many people think that they can answer an argument by attributing bad motives to those who disagree with them. Using this kind of reasoning, you can believe or not believe anything about anything, without having to bother to deal with facts or logic.”
“Without being there or having a lot more information on the event, I wouldn’t second guess the cops actions given that outcome.”
While it is certainly possible that some circumstance prevented the policeman from shooting the dirtballs, there is a larger trend that cannot be written off in that way.
We are all safer in the long run if it is the police’s policy to shoot.
I think it's better to think first, then shoot when called for.
i was there. officer thomas acted perfect under pressure and kept everyone calm. im glad no one thought this was a video game or seagal movie. it was real life. the fact that no one got seriously hurt or killed means we all did just what we should have. stick to the xbox. real guns fire real bullets.
You don't like it. Think before you post.
“A number of us discredited your ‘argument’ as uninformed.”
Road apples. A few people (there is no “us,” from which I am excluded) *disputed* my remarks. That’s all. Disputed, with nothing more than their own opinions to back them up.
Get over yourself.
You do the same there, Rambo.
The lessons to be learned here are:
1. LEOs (off and on duty) have no personal nor civic duty to to respond. Period.
2. We all will react differently to each scenario, and we would have to live with what we did or did not do....
3. Some folks think bullets being fired during a crime are not “a lethal threat” nor a display of intent to harm...
4. Others are of the opinion that “until they start executing” is a component of a reasonable lethal force response (assuming the first victim is not “you”).
5. Every one has opinions and assumptions-and they usually are not accurate, myself included.
We all have the benefit of being third persons in this story-we all can say what we could have, would have, should have done, but the fact remains, we were not there so we can only surmise.
I am glad no innocents were injured (if being terrorized and robbed at gunpoint isn't injurious?) or killed. I would have liked to hear that the perps were stopped so they do not do it again, by the off duty LEO or a private citizen, whomever.
I remain firmly of the opinion that none should ever assume any one else, private citizen or hired agent of a government entity, will prevent one from being subjected to criminal horrors.
YOU ARE YOUR OWN BEST DEFENSE.
Get good training, get experience (as you will only tend to do well what you practice in stressful situations) and remain aware. Let your spouse and children etc have fun (while training them too), you remain vigilant, it is the honor of being responsible.
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.