Off-duty cop kills gunman (Chicago)

Chicago Sun-Times ^

[Petruchio]

Off-duty cop kills gunman

Police said an off-duty Prairie District officer shot and killed one of two men who tried to rob him as he walked home from a grocery store on the South Side on Saturday night. The armed men approached him near 69th and Crandon around 8 p.m. The officer, fearing for his life, dropped his two grocery bags, drew his weapon and fired, police said. Investigators said they recovered a weapon near the body of the suspect who was fatally shot. The other suspect was still at large late Saturday, and police did not know if he had been struck. The officer, who has been on the job six years, was not hurt.

[rpd35]

do you also expect the same performance standards for the citizens? or can just anybody pick up their gun and fire away? thats called dangerous........

[rpd35]

armed citizens have also shot more family members,neighbors etc. make no mistake, i am not against concealed carry just you should have to jump thru the same hoops i do to get that privilage. training, training, training.
heck i have a better idea, lets just pass out badges to everybody and we can all arrest anyone we want.

[rpd35]

again, in your world where everybody is armed,do you have to be trained? qualify 4x a year? go thru hours and hours of shoot, dont shoot scenarios? or is carrying a gun less important than getting a drivers license? about the backup......can you picture that scenario?? EVERYBODY PULLS OUT A GUN. who's on first......nah, i would rather have the professionals do the job. or can i come to your gall bladder operation and assist? look at me i am a serf just because i cant do gall bladder operations........c'mon.

[Graybeard58]

Your veiled allusion to cops as pigs in your #23 lost me right away.

He's a cop basher from way back.He will never asdmit it but he has run afoul of the law at some point in his life and harbors a real hatred for the police.

My son is a policeman in Illinois and can and does carry his weapon anywhere in the state legally and also has the authority to detain and arrest anywhere in Illinois.

In addition many states have agreements with each other allowing police officers from each others states to carry in their various states.

In the election campaign of 2000 both Pres. Bush and Al Gore supported federal legislation allowing police officers from one state to carry in ALL states. this is not law yet but should be.

[philetus]

"armed citizens have also shot more family members,neighbors etc. make no mistake"

Of course, your so right, CCW licensed armed citizens have also shot more family members, neighbors, postmen, stray dogs,etc.

[Petruchio]

i am not against concealed carry just you should have to jump thru the same hoops i do to get that privilage.

You just failed Constitution 101. Armed self defence is a RIGHT not a privilage.

[El Gato]

do you also expect the same performance standards for the citizens? or can just anybody pick up their gun and fire away? thats called dangerous........

What do you mean by performance standards? Police, especially those in the larger jurisdictions, are notoriously bad shots. In most, but not all, states that actually trust their ordinary citizens, after a background check, to carry a concealed handgun, there is a shooting skill requirement, and a requirement to know the law on when use of deadly force is justified. Texas adds some material on resolving conflicts conflicts without use of force, and even avoiding conflicts. Some states dispense with one or the other. Texas requires both. I learned that you can use deadly force to resist excessive force (more than needed to effect an arrest, and likely to cause serious bodily injury or death) by a police officer under Texas law, by studing the law, not from the class. So at least in Texas, the law applies to both police and citizens. In general the police are not allowed to use deadly force in any circumstances where a private citizen would not be justified in using it. They can carry handguns unconcealed, and that's about the only difference. (Since to become police officer they go through an equivalent background check, and get firearms training, that is just a little, but not as much as you might think, better than a CHL holder gets. OTOH, many need it, because they haven't been part of the "gun culture" before they became peace officers, which is really too bad, but is only common in the larger cities, and probably even there not typical)

So yes, just anybody can pickup (i.e. bear) their gun and fire away, when the circumstances justify it. Why should they not? They have a right to defend themselves don't they?

Police mistankenly shoot the wrong person at much higher rates than private citizens. Saying that is not knocking th police necessarily, since they come up on a situtation not really knowing who is who. The private citizen that is being mugges, raped or otherwise attacked, or is being robbed knows full well who the bad guy is. Oh yea, in Texas you can use deadly force to protect property, in some cases. It may not be a good idea, you have to ask yourself if your CD or super duper sound system is really worth the hassle, or would you rather just collect the insurance money and upgrade a little? But if your body is threatened, Texas law recognizes that it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by six, and so usually dispenses with the trial. Even in defending property cases, when taken to a Grand Jury, are almost always No-Billed, which means the grand jury finds no evidence of a crime by the defender.

OTOH, Vermont, recognizing the RKBA, does not restrict anybody from carrying anything anywhere at any time for any (lawful) reason. Open or concealed, they don't care. They don't have a big, or any, problem with private citzens getting a wild hair and blasting away for just any old reason. If people who do so, they go to jail, it's called reckless endangerment.

Police exist to take most of the burden of keeping the peace away from the ordinary citizen. The citzenry did not give up their right or powers when they created the police force.

Up until the last century or century and a half, depending on location, there were no police to speak of. A sherrif, and maybe a deputy or two. Or a town marshall and likewise a deputy or two. For anyting requiring more manpower, the sherriff would call on the posse commitatus, which is just the militia, which in turn is just the people, wearing a different hat, and reporting to the sherrif rather than their own commanders and ultimately the governor of the state, or territory as applicable.

[El Gato]

In the election campaign of 2000 both Pres. Bush and Al Gore supported federal legislation allowing police officers from one state to carry in ALL states. this is not law yet but should be.

Shouldn't be needed. Effective December 15, 1791 "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" became the law. In 1868 it was made clear by amendment XIV, that the states were not to infringe that right of the people either. Police are part of the people, so they can have (keep) and carry (bear) arms anywhere, other than private property if the owner objects, as well. Any laws restricting that carry are just as unconstitutional when appliced to police officers not on duty as they are to when applied to anyone else.

[suijuris]

You live under a common law system.

What are you smoking. We haven't had a common law system in this country since the Enabling Act of 1934; which set up rules of procedure etc. that were eventually adopted by all the states by 1983. For your edification, the Enabling Act merged common law and equity (can you guess why?)at the Federal level and eventually all the states followed suit> WE NO LONGER HAVE A COMMON LAW SYSTEM, I DON"T CARE WHAT YOU CALL IT!

[Petruchio]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

You know nothing about me.

The sorry truth is I know exactly what button to push to play you like a fiddle when ever and where ever I desire. I have you right where I want you. And there is not a darn thing you can do to change that fact.

This is so much fun!
:-D

BTW, Shrinks have a term that describes your problem. If I remember it correctly it is called transference or something close to that.

[Graybeard58]

You know nothing about me.

I know all I need to know about you.

[CWOJackson]

Did someone forget to change your nappies today?

[Abe Froman]

I've never run afoul of the law other than petty traffic violations, yet I harbor a severe distaste for police so I am exhibit "A" in the invalidation of your argument. One does not need to be a criminal to disklike or even run afoul of police.

Even my limited experience with cops is enough to see the "badge & gun" effect. It causes arrogance and power-tripping. A very large contingent of LEOs think and act as if they are a ruling class and us private citizens are not part of the club.

Moreover I think the profession of law enforcement attracts people with personalities prone to power-tripping and a need to dominate others. They think they can stop crime by literally going out and physically stopping it themselves or by intimidation. In the process their consideration for law-abiding cititzens' liberty goes out the window. It simply does not compute in their cop-brain mentality.

[Abe Froman]

Ever hear of prior restraint on a Constitutional right?


Disarm the Police by Gary North

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north198.html

[rpd35]

ok constitution 101 guy, the supreme court (ever heard of them?) defines the "right to keep and bear arms" defines that to mean being part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA...... class dismissed.

[rpd35]

notoriously bad shots??!!!. ok maybe in chicago, but for 18 years i had to qualify at a minimum of 80% in the 5x. (dead center for those who dont shoot) if i didnt, they would take my gun. rightfully so. so i guess it depends on jurisdiction. i have never heard of a department who let anyone carry without qualifying, CAN WE SAY A BIZILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT??
i do have friends that are nypd and went to a eagles game and were prosecuted for concealed carry.
i still stand by my statement that if you want it your way, just qualify. again.barbers used to be dentists also....hopefully we have progressed from the ok corrall

[rpd35]

doesnt the supreme court interpret those rights? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm? disarm the police??? give me your # next time someone is breaking in my house at 3am i want you to come and protect me, and before you say if i was armed, etc. what about infirm,handicapped,mentally disabled, or convicted felons (who have paid their debt to society but are prohibited from possessing firearms) do they not deserve protection? wait i will give them your number, you can protect them.

[rpd35]

hey abe....a little personal info on me.....i am now permanently disabled as a result of arresting a man who had beat his wife. i was with my rights to shoot him since at one point we were struggling for and he got my gun pointed it towards my head and tried to kill me. i didnt shoot. i value life, in fact i hold it precious. i did this for a total stranger.....walk a mile in my shoes then, tell me about rights how bad cops are.....i know, i nearly died doing my DUTY. there are "badge heavy" (industry term) cops in every dept. REAL COPS dispise them, and i have arrested cops. so maybe i am the exception not the norm, but you put people in boxes and that isnt right. i dont even know you but if called upon, i would honor my oath and take a bullet for you. so lesson # 1 is not all cops are the same. we dont like the bad ones either. if good cops got as much press as bad cops people like you would know the real truth.

[Abe Froman]

I am sorry to hear that you were maimed but that doesn't render my point invalid.

Obviously you didn't read the reasoning behind that plan to disarm the police.

If police were disarmed and citizens could freely arm themselves, it would place real power back in the hands it ultimately belongs to: citizens. Citizens could protect themselves and that would reduce the perceived need for police. "Badge heavy" cops (which I contend are much more prevalent than you think, probably because you are/were a cop) would be a thing of the past. To wit: the government should fear the citizens. Police are only an early 19th centry construction, what do you think people did before that?

Yes, the Supreme Court interprets those rights. To date the Supreme court has held that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and they have roundly rejected prior restraint (to quote Walter Sobchak). I might add that one need not be a scholar to determine the plain meaning of the 2nd amendment. "the right......shall not be infringed" says it all.

I see no reason why a convicted felon that has paid their debt to society and is deemed fit to live among us should not be allowed to legally possess weapons. If he cannot be trusted with a gun then perhaps he shouldn't have been let out of prison. If he wants a gun for an unlawful purpose, his personal prohibition isn't much of an obstacle.

As far as the mentally handicapped or infirm go---if you can show me that the police are protecting them in every instance right now then I'll agree with you that we need them for that reason alone. Police are not psychics and as such they cannot predict crime. Furthermore, they are a small minority compared to the rest of society. As such, they are effectively a reactionary response to crime, not a proactive preventative one. They cannot protect all people all the time and even the most ardent police apologist would admit that they can only protect a similarly small minority of us at any one time. Therefore whether we have police or not, the disabled among us will always be particularly vulnerable. It is only in the armament and empowerment of a large mass of the law-abiding citizenry that can more effectively increase the odds that someone with the willingness and capability to stop an attacker will be wherever that attack occurrs.

[Abe Froman]

By the way, just because the SC interprets law from a supposedly Constitutional perspective does not mean that they get it right, whether due to ignorance of the Founder's opinions or by willfully fallacious reasoning (re: Roe V Wade.) I can bury any constitutional pro-gun-control argument in quotes, by the founding fathers, that explain the true reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. In no other matter were the founders more monolithic, uncomprimising, and adamant as they were in the issue of the right to keep and bear arms. I defy you to find a single quote by a signer of the Declaration or Constitution or any elected federal government representative before the year 1825 that can be construed to authorize any measure to regulate the ownership or use of arms. I don't believe one exists, and if it does, it is in the uttermost minority of opinions.

"A free people.....ought to be armed."------George Washington

"No man should scruple or hesitate a moment to use arms in self-defense."----George Washington

"The right......of bearing arms......is declard to be inherent in the people."----Fisher Ames

"The great object is that every man be armed......Every one who is able may have a gun."-----Patrick Henry

"The said Constitution [should] never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."-----Samuel Adams

"Even if it was practicable, would it be wise to disarm the good before 'the wicked cease from troubling?' [Job 3:17]------John Jay, Original Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."---Richard Henry Lee

"And what country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."----Thomas Jefferson

"I would gladly agree with all the world to lay aside the use of arms and settle matters by negotiation; but unless the whole will, the matter ends, and I take up my musket and thank Heaven He has put it in my power."----Thomas Paine

"I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil......Divine providence has given to every individual the means to self-defense."----George Mason

"The advantage of being armed the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation......In the several kingdoms of Europe......the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."----James Madison