Applauded for remarkable restraint?

M1911

Moderator
NES Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
48,035
Likes
23,534
Location
Near Framingham
Feedback: 29 / 0 / 0
"Given that the officer was exposed to an extremely dangerous situation where he was fired upon by the suspect, I believe the officer showed remarkable restraint by not using his firearm and being able to subdue the suspect and place him under arrest without further incident,'' Haas said in a statement.

http://www.boston.com/yourtown/news...hief_applaud_2.html?p1=HP_Well_YourTown_links

I think he should have castigated the officer for not shooting the SOB, but I guess I'm just a fascist at heart.
 
Kruger was allegedly armed with a .22 caliber pistol. The standard firearm for Cambridge police is a .40 caliber semiautomatic pistol, police said.

As if that means anything.

Does make me remember back when I had a bp vest, class 2a had a huge tag on it that said something along the lines of, "May not prevent rounds from .22 calibre firearms." Never tested that out though...
 
My guess is the POS fell down the stairs before the LEO had a chance to shoot him, and the guy more or less conked out, and likely lost control of his peashooter on the way down the stairs. The LEO sadly could not justify addressing his glaringly obvious lead deficiency at that point.

-Mike
 
Based on the article, it's not clear whether the initial encounter was up close or at some distance. The officer may have felt that he did not have a reasonable chance of hitting the perp and that his back stop was not good. It sounds like the police did not get up close to the bad guy until he fell and lost his weapon.
 
Way too many people around here salivating at the the chance to open fire on someone, and ready to dump on anyone who declines to do so. Sounds as if they're pissed at having spent all that money on an LTC and still not having been able to kill somebody yet.

Read the article and tell me at what point it would have been a good idea for the officer would have started shooting. He starts by approaching a group of people acting suspiciously. No, I don't think that's when he should have started blasting. He then pursues one who starts running. No justification there either. Then the fool shoots at the officer as he rounds a corner, and the officer draws his weapon, but has lost sight of the shooter. Start blasting in the general directions? I don't think so. He then searches for the shooter and discovers that he's fallen down stairs, allowing him to disarm and take the shooter into custody without further incident. Looks like a excellent performance by the officer from my point of view, though I suspect some people here are disappointed that he didn't take the opportunity to shoot him when he could have got away with it. Then we could have started an argument as to whether it was a good shoot or an execution, based on not having the evidence necessary to tell one from another.

Ken
 
My guess is the POS fell down the stairs before the LEO had a chance to shoot him, and the guy more or less conked out, and likely lost control of his peashooter on the way down the stairs. The LEO sadly could not justify addressing his glaringly obvious lead deficiency at that point.

-Mike


That was my take too LOL. Cop couldn't get a clear shot off or the guy fell down the stairs before he could draw and the rest is spin by the CLEO of moonbat land.
 
Way too many people around here salivating at the the chance to open fire on someone, and ready to dump on anyone who declines to do so. Sounds as if they're pissed at having spent all that money on an LTC and still not having been able to kill somebody yet.

LINK
 
Way too many people around here salivating at the the chance to open fire on someone, and ready to dump on anyone who declines to do so. Sounds as if they're pissed at having spent all that money on an LTC and still not having been able to kill somebody yet.


My friend.............. that it is one of the more spot on posts I have read on here to date.
 
FWIW I think the LEO did do the right thing. It's not like he had much of a choice once the guy wasn't much of a threat.

I think the "he should have shot him" thing is more cynicism/gallows humor than anything else. The only way scumbags like this guy typically meet justice of any sort is if it's administered by a LEO or a potential victim, or even another scumbag. The courts in this state don't administer justice to these types of offenders. Hell, they probably contemplated letting the guy out on personal recognizance. [thinking]

-Mike
 
Way too many people around here salivating at the the chance to open fire on someone, and ready to dump on anyone who declines to do so. Sounds as if they're pissed at having spent all that money on an LTC and still not having been able to kill somebody yet.

Reps for post of the year.

Looks like a excellent performance by the officer from my point of view, though I suspect some people here are disappointed that he didn't take the opportunity to shoot him when he could have got away with it. Then we could have started an argument as to whether it was a good shoot or an execution, based on not having the evidence necessary to tell one from another.

Ken

You forget the lively debate on how there are different rules for cops, relatives of cops, ex-cops etc.

Ken, same thoughts when I read the comments on the oakham store incident but I wouldn't have worded it half as well!



Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
 
Way too many people around here salivating at the the chance to open fire on someone, and ready to dump on anyone who declines to do so. Sounds as if they're pissed at having spent all that money on an LTC and still not having been able to kill somebody yet.

Ken

I agree way too many blood thirsty savages willing to kill over property or championing executions by Leo without judge, jury or even evidence. Frequently when a LEO has to shoot some one, the LEO goes out on a disability due to the stress involved. Two casualties for each shooting.
 
Back
Top Bottom