Additional new caselaw affirms: the police and the courts believe cops are allowed to kill people

[SKumar]

I find it comical that most people here probably wouldn't be able to get 50% of their shots in a standard police silhouette at 20 yards under ideal range conditions are criticizing police officers who miss their target while under fire from a mass shooter armed with a semi-automatic rifle.

That's not the question. The question is: who takes responsibility when a bullet strikes an unintended target? The answer is not "it's our job to blast away and shit happens".

You have to go back to why police carry firearms in the first place. (hint: it's not so they have carte blanche to start blasting away).

 

[pastera]

Please stop blaming qualified immunity for shitty behavior. That's only the last part of a much larger problem.

Qualified immunity only comes into play after the rest of the criminal system has let them off the hook. It's the unions and absurdly generous contracts that give cops all sorts of get-out-of-jail-free cards even before the victims can sue.

Cops don't have to answer questions until they get their story straight, they literally can coordinate their statements.
Cops don't have to justify shooting anyone if they can, even in the remotest way, claim they were in danger.
Cops are given *EVERY* benefit of doubt, at every point.

Qualified immunity is only about civil lawsuits, not about criminal behavior.

And that's my point
They are in bed with the criminal system so they don't fear it and QI insulates them from civil action.
So why would they care about silly little things like hitting a suspect.
Plenty of stories about police panicking and shooting other cops with poorly aimed or unaimed fire that end up falling out of the news cycle.

 

[Uzi2]

If you want to criticize how the police do their job, feel free to put on the uniform, pick up a weapon, and start working a patrol.

Until then, you would do well to not judge their actions with hindsight being 20/20 and the standard being perfection when under fire.

How about "GO FVCK YOURSELF"

 

[weekendracer]

A mass shooter was non existent tough
Only a report of possible one and you know how accurate 911 calls are
One guy assaulting, one lady with a lock

Still a clean shoot in it's essence. Getting hit in the head with a heavy object meets the criteria.

Tragic a bystander lost their life, I bet the cop has a hard time with that part of it. He may not go to jail for it, but he/she will have to live with it.

 

[Uzi2]

Still a clean shoot in it's essence. Getting hit in the head with a heavy object meets the criteria.

Tragic a bystander lost their life, I bet the cop has a hard time with that part of it. He may not go to jail for it, but he/she will have to live with it.

Stand by.....I'll cry him a river......NOT!

 

[weekendracer]

Stand by.....I'll cry him a river......NOT!

I don't expect you to. You'd never put yourself in that position, and I don't blame you for not doing it.

 

[Uzi2]

I don't expect you to. You'd never put yourself in that position, and I don't blame you for not doing it.

You don't know the first thing about my past. Stop making such grand assumptions.

 

[weekendracer]

You don't know the first thing about my past. Stop making such grand assumptions.

Your comment tells me you've never been in that situation. It's not a grand assumption, maybe an assumption.

I'm sure there are tons of former military that had a round go stray, or fire into a building and find non-combatants killed. I don't say 'Cry me a river sissy boy', I understand bad things happen in dynamic situations. I understand they probably have to wall that memory off in their mind, but still live with it. So, yeah, I'll stand by my assumption.

 

[milktree]

Only cops are qualified to have guns:

https://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html

The officers unloaded 16 rounds in the shadow of the Empire State Building at a disgruntled former apparel designer, killing him after he engaged in a gunbattle with police, authorities said.


Three passersby sustained direct gunshot wounds, while the remaining six were hit by fragments, according to New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly. All injuries were caused by police, he said Saturday.

 

[Uzi2]

Your comment tells me you've never been in that situation. It's not a grand assumption, maybe an assumption.

I'm sure there are tons of former military that had a round go stray, or fire into a building and find non-combatants killed. I don't say 'Cry me a river sissy boy', I understand bad things happen in dynamic situations. I understand they probably have to wall that memory off in their mind, but still live with it. So, yeah, I'll stand by my assumption.

Good, stand by it. It only confirms you as a fool.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Good, stand by it. It only confirms you as a fool.

You know some people here are trying to be civil, and then there are a**h***s like you who just resort to name calling. And that's not an assumption, you clearly outed yourself in this thread.

Go find your safe space and have yourself a good cry. You'll feel better when you're done.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

That's not the question. The question is: who takes responsibility when a bullet strikes an unintended target? The answer is not "it's our job blast away and shit happens".

You have to go back to why police carry firearms in the first place. (hint: it's not so they have carte blanche to start blasting away).

That is a gross mischaracterization of "the answer". It's complicated. But the fact of the matter remains, absent a criminal bent on doing harm, the police would not have had to respond. Had the police not responded and engaged, no one gets shot. So I answer your question with a question. Who's responsible for the repercussions of criminal behavior? Is it the criminal, or is it the police officer enforcing the law? Because you seem to think it's the cop, in all instances, regardless of circumstances. Well I don't not subscribe to that belief system.

 

[not new guy]

That is a gross mischaracterization of "the answer". It's complicated. But the fact of the matter remains, absent a criminal bent on doing harm, the police would not have had to respond. Had the police not responded and engaged, no one gets shot. So I answer your question with a question. Who's responsible for the repercussions of criminal behavior? Is it the criminal, or is it the police officer enforcing the law? Because you seem to think it's the cop, in all instances, regardless of circumstances. Well I don't not subscribe to that belief system.

Why does only one person have to be responsible for everything that stems from the commission of a crime? Does that initial crime absolve all later bad actors of the consequences of their bad actions? That doesn't make sense.

 

[weekendracer]

Why does only one person have to be responsible for everything that stems from the commission of a crime? Does that initial crime absolve all later bad actors of the consequences of their bad actions? That doesn't make sense.

Because one person is responsible. The person committing the act.

 

[FalArAk]

Whether you’re a victim of a crime or just some random person standing on the street corner any time cops are involved everyone’s safety is in jeopardy.

..Except their own.

To them, their lives are the only ones that matter

I am referring to the bad apples, not all the apples.

 

[milktree]

That is a gross mischaracterization of "the answer". It's complicated. But the fact of the matter remains, absent a criminal bent on doing harm, the police would not have had to respond. Had the police not responded and engaged, no one gets shot.

This is the “look what you made me do” argument. It’s bogus. It’s the argument that bullies, domestic abusers, and those who don’t want to take responsibility for their actions use.

So I answer your question with a question. Who's responsible for the repercussions of criminal behavior? Is it the criminal, or is it the police officer enforcing the law? Because you seem to think it's the cop, in all instances, regardless of circumstances.

Nobody said that. The cop is responsible for the cop’s actions.

Well I don't not subscribe to that belief system.

Clearly. Do you believe cops ever do wrong, or that an action by a cop could be reckless enough to make him responsible for the results?

If so, where’s the line?

Is the line for cops in a different place than the line for little people? (The rest of us)

 

[not new guy]

Because one person is responsible. The person committing the act.

One person per act (for argument’s sake), but there can be multiple acts committed by multiple different actors that arise as a result of the initial crime.

 

[weekendracer]

One person per act (for argument’s sake), but there can be multiple acts arising as a result of the initial crime.

In this case, I'm guessing you are saying the cop that fired committed a criminal act, while trying to end the threat towards another person. The cop missed, how bad, I don't know without a schematic of the situation. You'll never get me to say cops don't need more training. But he/she didn't commit a crime.

I don't disagree with your concept, yes, a cop could go overboard and smack into civil rights violations and what not. There's a lot of 'what ifs' out there, sticking to this incident as much as I can.

 

[Mountain]

Not only do they have no duty to protect you, they can kill you with no consequence, even if you’re a teenage girl bystander or a kidnapping victim.

New video shows teen kidnapping victim gunned down by cops as she ran toward them for help

Savannah Graziano, 15, was gunned down on Sept. 27, 2022, one day after witnessing her father, Anthony John Graziano, 45, murdering her mother Tracy Martinez.

nypost.com

Whether you’re a victim of a crime or just some random person standing on the street corner any time cops are involved everyone’s safety is in jeopardy.

So no responsibility for the father of the year who was blasting away at the cops with his daughter in the line of fire?

 

[PappyM3]

So no responsibility for the father of the year who was blasting away at the cops with his daughter in the line of fire?

Some of the cops intentionally fired at her, not her dad in the car.

 

[not new guy]

In this case, I'm guessing you are saying the cop that fired committed a criminal act, while trying to end the threat towards another person. The cop missed, how bad, I don't know without a schematic of the situation. You'll never get me to say cops don't need more training. But he/she didn't commit a crime.

I don't disagree with your concept, yes, a cop could go overboard and smack into civil rights violations and what not. There's a lot of 'what ifs' out there, sticking to this incident as much as I can.

I haven’t even seen the video(?) in question - no idea what happened here. Just saying that blaming everything that happens on a single person excuses all sorts of potential bad acts that might follow.

 

[milktree]

In this case, I'm guessing you are saying the cop that fired committed a criminal act, while trying to end the threat towards another person. The cop missed, how bad, I don't know without a schematic of the situation. You'll never get me to say cops don't need more training. But he/she didn't commit a crime.

If you or I did the exact same thing, do you think we’d be charged? Do you think the police would investigate and decide not to arrest or press charges?

Even if what he did wasn’t a crime, that doesn’t mean “no responsibility” or “not responsible”.

If you crash your car into a storefront, even if by accident, you are still responsible for the damage.

 

[weekendracer]

If you or I did the exact same thing, do you think we’d be charged? Do you think the police would investigate and decide not to arrest or press charges?

Even if what he did wasn’t a crime, that doesn’t mean “no responsibility” or “not responsible”.

If you crash your car into a storefront, even if by accident, you are still responsible for the damage.

If you shot a bystander while dealing with an active threat? Probably not. Maybe get 'detained' until they figure out what happened? Sure, but go to jail/trial? Maybe in Mass or NY. Until they settle the situation down, they don't have a clear definition of who you are. That's why police wear uniforms, clearly identifiable, known role in the situation. Honestly, I'd be happy to not get shot myself today, if I dealt with a situation in plain clothes.

You can 'what if' to death. You don't possibly think I can single answer every situation do you? Not being an ass, there's just way too many variables to take into account if you're being honest about the situation. Remember the mall shooter that got dropped by a CCW? The church shooter in Tx (I think). No charges. It's rare for a normal person to end a situation like this, lots of stories both ways. Rarely hear the outcome other than 'good guy with a gun was taken into custody'. They rarely make his release with no charges the same front page, news blast story. I am waiting to hear what happens to the Marine that accidentally killed the subway assaulter he stopped. Then again, that's NY isn't it? Even I don't expect a happy outcome on that one.

ETA.. I'm not saying he's not responsible, hence my 'he has to live with it'. The city may pay out a death benefit. I'm just saying he shouldn't go to jail over a miss if the act was in good faith. I'd say the same about anyone. The legal system is another monster with too many variables in who the DA is to attempt to comment.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

This is the “look what you made me do” argument. It’s bogus. It’s the argument that bullies, domestic abusers, and those who don’t want to take responsibility for their actions use.



Nobody said that. The cop is responsible for the cop’s actions.



Clearly. Do you believe cops ever do wrong, or that an action by a cop could be reckless enough to make him responsible for the results?

If so, where’s the line?

Is the line for cops in a different place than the line for little people? (The rest of us)

I believe cops do stuff wrong and make mistakes all the time. They're human.... Let he who is without sin cast the first stone BTW... But to categorically imply they're all trigger happy statist jack boot thugs because some act inappropriately is ignorant. To suggest they do not deserve the right to a presumption of innocence, just like you have, is in itself - authoritarian and statist. So pot - meet kettle.

The strong majority of them are good people doing a tough job, dealing with the worst society has to offer - every single day. Your comment "This is the “look what you made me do” argument." is completely off base. The police are not the initiators. They're the responders..

 

[milktree]

I believe cops do stuff wrong and make mistakes all the time. They're human.... Let he who is without sin cast the first stone BTW... But to categorically imply they're all trigger happy statist jack boot thugs because some act inappropriately is ignorant.

Read more carefully. Nobody said that.

To suggest they do not deserve the right to a presumption of innocence, just like you have, is in itself - authoritarian and statist. So pot - meet kettle.

Dude, are you not paying attention? If us little people were given the same presumption of innocence that cops are given there wouldn't be a problem.

But we're not. Cops are given way, way more presumption of innocence than us little people.

When little people have their vault broken into they're charged with improper storage. When a cop leaves his gun in a public bathroom, they don't feel the need to charge because it turned out OK. It's not just local cops. Remember Operation Fast and Furious? Can you imagine an individual doing that? Or Ruby Ridge, or Waco. When .gov does it, they get a pass.

Just look through the "police protecting and serving" thread and imagine what would happen if you or I did those things.

And really, cops are supposed to be the professionals. They're the ones who are supposed to have better training. It's reasonable to assume that people with better training, and given authority by the state to do all sorts of things that the rest of us can't do, should be held to a higher standard.

The strong majority of them are good people doing a tough job, dealing with the worst society has to offer - every single day. Your comment "This is the “look what you made me do” argument." is completely off base. The police are not the initiators. They're the responders..

No, it's not. When cops show up, (if they show up) they are under zero obligation to get involved. The Supreme Court has said so. They can literally hide behind stuff until it's safe. you said:

Had the police not responded and engaged, no one gets shot.

That's true, because if he police had not shot anyone, no one would have been shot.

The cops were not required to shoot anyone, they were not being shot at. A cop decided to shoot at someone armed with a bicycle lock.

As a gun owner I am 100% responsible for where my bullets go. Why do you not believe this is true for cops?

 

[CR2001]

So no responsibility for the father of the year who was blasting away at the cops with his daughter in the line of fire?

Responsibility lies with the person who shot the KIDNAPPING VICTIM
Did you see the part where the KIDNAPPING VICTIM was shot?

FFS
the back da blue klan gets more pathetic every day

 

[Mountain]

Responsibility lies with the person who shot the KIDNAPPING VICTIM
Did you see the part where the KIDNAPPING VICTIM was shot?

FFS
the back da blue klan gets more pathetic every day

FFS Seems like reading comprehension gets more pathetic every day. I did not absolve the cops but questioned why no one placed any blame at all on the POS father.

Also I've seen some debate whether she was a participant or victim.

An additional comment- If the cop / cops are proven guilty of murder, I'd be glad to literally watch them hang. I think that's unlikely and probably the worst that should stick would be manslaughter. Why? Because the POS father put her and the cops in that situation. Nothing was premeditated. But go ahead and ignore all the other facts to support knee-jerk ACAB feelings.

 

[SKumar]

To suggest they do not deserve the right to a presumption of innocence, just like you have, is in itself - authoritarian and statist. So pot - meet kettle.

LOL dude what world are you living in? You think when cops engage with the public that they presume you're innocent until they have hard facts to prove guilt? Do you not see non-stop right violations occurring on bodycam videos in every corner of this country?
Holy moly I can't believe you even suggested that private civilians have a presumption of innocence equal to that of cops and other government goons. Wow.

 

[CR2001]

FFS Seems like reading comprehension gets more pathetic every day. I did not absolve the cops but questioned why no one placed any blame at all on the POS father.

Also I've seen some debate whether she was a participant or victim.

An additional comment- If the cop / cops are proven guilty of murder, I'd be glad to literally watch them hang. I think that's unlikely and probably the worst that should stick would be manslaughter. Why? Because the POS father put her and the cops in that situation. Nothing was premeditated. But go ahead and ignore all the other facts to support knee-jerk ACAB feelings.

The fact that you raise this question at all is beyond pathetic and absolutely ridiculous. Victim blame much? Remember officer safety is the number one and only priority in every situation.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

LOL dude what world are you living in? You think when cops engage with the public that they presume you're innocent until they have hard facts to prove guilt? Do you not see non-stop right violations occurring on bodycam videos in every corner of this country?
Holy moly I can't believe you even suggested that private civilians have a presumption of innocence equal to that of cops and other government goons. Wow.

Don't be dense. Its unbecoming. We do not adjudicate on the side of the road. We adjudicate when we get our day in court.