Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4
Results 31 to 37 of 37
  1. #31
    Ark
    Ark is offline
    Sharpshooter Ark's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Twangbanger View Post
    The key here, is the "hands up, hands up, hands up" (the LEO's equivalent of "STOP!").

    I would tend to agree with you, if he complied.

    This one is tough and looked like it could go either way, to the layperson. But the "complying with instructions" part as always is the key. And I suspect if anything, that is the component of the law which will get Denny'ed, as Denny mentions above. Eventually, society will raise the bar on the use of "compliance" as a precursor to a shooting. But it's going to take a while, and a lot more suspects like this one will probably lose their lives if the word doesn't get out. In our society, police have a _lot_ of leeway in how to act with a noncompliant suspect. Society, especially places like Chicago, is going to have to think about the consequences of changing the location of that bar in the sand. Scenes like the above aren't easy to watch. But when that line gets moved, society will change, and not necessarily for the better.
    I apply the same philosophy I apply to civilian defensive gun use: Being technically within the bounds of the law isn't always going to be enough to save you. You can have fun telling your cellmate that you were "technically allowed to shoot him". If you try to toe the line of acceptability, something might grab you and pull you across it. We like to pretend the text of the law will always swoop in and save us, but the truth is that politics gets a say and the ignorant public gets a say. Justice doesn't always prevail, so it pays to stay as far back from that line as you can.

  2. #32
    Master Twangbanger's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Ark View Post
    I apply the same philosophy I apply to civilian defensive gun use: Being technically within the bounds of the law isn't always going to be enough to save you. You can have fun telling your cellmate that you were "technically allowed to shoot him". If you try to toe the line of acceptability, something might grab you and pull you across it. We like to pretend the text of the law will always swoop in and save us, but the truth is that politics gets a say and the ignorant public gets a say. Justice doesn't always prevail, so it pays to stay as far back from that line as you can.
    But you highlight the crux of the discussion in your first phrase. The same rules don't apply to police. And I will admit, my first impression was, nah, maybe he was a little fast in going to the gun.

    What you and I, as civilians, have to remember, is that it's not our job to keep society safe. We can sit back. We don't need (and in fact are not allowed) to escalate situations and deepen our involvement. We have that luxury. Police do not (if they are doing their job properly). An assault was called in. And these individuals fit the description. We probably should ask: what would we like for the officer to have done differently? Was the officer supposed to get into a foot race with someone fitting the description of an armed assailant, being noncompliant and reaching for his waistband? At the minimum, that carries the risk that the person simply gets away. For you and me, as civilians, that's a good outcome, because we don't really want a confrontation. But for the Police, it's not just about their own personal safety. Even if the person simply gets away, that carries the (possibly unacceptable) risk this person goes on an assault spree, perhaps returning later to settle the score with the person who called the cops on him (a person in this case who is known to the assailant). Could they have simply rounded him up later, since they ostensibly know who he is? That's an option. And hope he doesn't kill somebody in the mean time? That's another option; and one the police are charged with considering.

    Somebody has to apply active pressure to the bad guys. That may not be your personal job. But it doesn't mean the police have to follow the same "prudent rules of engagement" as you. Their job is to protect other lives besides their own. Shooting that kid had a cost to society. But, allowing evasive, non-compliant, armed assailants to simply run away has a cost to society, also. Police have to strike that balance. "John Q. Civilian CCW Guy" does not. We have the option to, as you put it, "stay as far back from that line as you can."

    When the Police begin to "stay as far back from that line as they can," that's when we all start living in Chicago.
    Last edited by Twangbanger; 4 Weeks Ago at 12:23.

  3. #33
    Grandmaster Leadeye's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    I'll wait and see what comes up in the details like the robbery victim's identifying the robbers and the gun, and any other details like criminal records.

    While there is enough for big media to get civil unrest started, there's more to the story.
    Where's the Kaboom? There was supposed to be an earth shattering Kaboom.

    Marvin the Martian

  4. #34
    Grandmaster Hookeye's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Naw....they should let em run......so they can duck into the first house they come across.

    As long as it aint your house its all good.

  5. #35
    Grandmaster Hookeye's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Dead thugs get automatic media sainthood
    Worth more dead than alive......its a spin of the municipal lottery wheel.

    Nothing to lose.

  6. #36
    Grandmaster Sigblitz's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    The shoot was within the law. In Colorado he could have been running with his hands in the air and legally shot, but not likely. And he could have not been the robber and running because he had a traffic warrant. Indiana law is structured so court isn't held on the side of the road.
    I'm gonna, riiiide 'till I can't no more.

  7. #37
    Plinker

    User Info Menu

    This one is marginal, but I'd say the officer acted reasonably knowing what he did at the time. The suspects matched the descrption, the officer knew the report that one or both had a weapon, and when about to be frisked one takes off and starts grabbing into his shorts (at least that's how it appeared to me). Given those facts, I think it was reasonable,but ultimately might be up to a jury to decide that

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge