Posted on 08/06/2007 11:16:57 AM PDT by WestTexasWend
That's incorrect.
In the case of my son, he was warned, and chose to not change his behavior. In the case of the cop, he was trained, and failed to adhere to his training.
I never thought of that, but it's starting to look like a viable career option. I could work up to retirement occupying space some young gung-ho SWAT wannabee would have otherwise filled.
Time for a career change? Hmmm...
Sorry I guess I missed the part where it said there would be no punishment of these cops. Back on duty are they?
The best cop we ever had in this small town was a life-long local who quit his Post Office job because it was too much work. He almost never wrote tickets, instead just telling teenagers (like myself) to “go home and don’t let me see you again tomight”. He was a cop for about 30 years, was universally respected and liked, and was missed when he died. The only mishap he ever had was one night when he shot at a skunk with a shotgun and the ricocheting pellets broke a window in the (empty) high school. Usually he just sat in his car and watched traffis.
"A police bullet that killed a small boy last week had been aimed at a black rat snake, a Norman animal control officer said Tuesday.
After the shooting on Friday that killed Austin Haley, 5, Norman's animal control department was called to collect and store the dead snake, Noble City Manager Bob Wade said."
Did I say they were not punished, or are you just confused? I’m sure they will soon be back protecting birdhouses, but as of now they’re on “administrative leave”, which you probably consider cruel and unusual punishment for killing a child.
Maybe somebody thinks there should be an investigation and a hearing, perhaps even a trial, before punishment. Maybe that’s it.
Where did I say there shouldn’t? In the meantime, they should be on unpaid leave.
And maybe somebody thinks that he should be charged and have to make bail for negligent homicide JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PERSON. Maybe sombody thinks that's the crux of the whole argument that's been going on: that there is a differenst standard for cops than everyone else. Maybe somethinks that cops should be held accountable for their actions just like the rest of us.
Right.
Are you being purposely obtuse? Or are you that way naturally? My prayers are with ALL those involved, as I have said over and over. Sorry you’re having reading difficulties.
This is a SMALL town, not NYC or LA. Training is minimal at best. There isn't enough $$ to attract true professionals for the most part.
If they didn't tell the guy to watch his backstop, they must have handed him a pistol and sent him into the field with no training at all.
That's possible, I guess. [sigh]
THANKS FOR THE GRAMMER LESSON HOPEFULLY THAT IS THE ONLY THING YOU TEACH WITH YOUR MISINFORMED LOGIC THAT YOU ARE SPREADING TO OTHER PEOPLE. TO THE LONG TIME HUNTER HAVE YOU NEVER HUNTED ON PUBLIC PROPERTY? DOE YOU KNOW THE MAXIMUM RANGE OF YOUR RIFLE YOU SHOOT.BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE HUNTED ON PUBLIC LAND YOU HAVE SHOT A RIFLE NOT KNOWING WHAT IS 300 YARDS AWAY AND A HIGH POWERED DEER RIFLE HAS THAT DISTANCE AND THEN SOME. AND IF YOU HAVE CONVINCED YOUR SELF YOU KNOW EVERYTHING IN THE RANGE OF YOUR RIFLE YOUR ARE CRAZY OR A LIAR.
I hear you braying but I'm not sure why you're doing it on a conservative forum. Why don't you just go lick a jackboot since that seems what you're most comfortable doing.
I see. So you neither read NOR write English. That explains everything.
But since you bring it up, by the way, half of my male family members are policemen. They think the guy should get jail time as well. He was wantonly irresponsible with a firearm, and the death of an innocent young boy resulted. Any citizen would face jail time for that. Police should, too. That shield is meant to protect us, not protect them from the consequences of negligence resulting from basic ignorance of the Rules for Firearms Safety.
What are you even arguing? When hunting deer, some do use a high-powered rifle. Many do so from an elevated position, and when taking their shot, I'd guess the bullet goes into the ground or breaks up within or not too far from the target. At least in this scenario one could say they were using a tool for its intended purpose. In this instance, however, two shots from a 9mm pistol were taken at a snake that was swinging in mid-air from a bird house, and the backstop was some wilderness area and beyond that a small pond. If there were some sort of emergency, such as the snake was riding on the back of a pit bull and actively attacking somebody (apologies for not crediting the originator of this scenario), I could understand using deadly force in an urgent matter. There was no emergency here. The snake was stuck in the birdhouse. Why decide the best solution was to commence target practice?
Correction: It has recently been said the weapon in question was a .40-caliber. Most police-issued weapons in this caliber that I've seen have been the Glock model 22, which uses the .40-S&W cartridge.
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.