-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Authorities: Hofstra student was killed by police
- Thread starter Jamie
- Start date
- Status
So you're saying the cop's life is worth more than hers?
Not knowing what I would do is completely separate from knowing a ****up when I see it.
I think part of the perceived anti-LEO atmosphere is that only screwuos are posted. Frankly I would rather see that as that means it is infrequent enough that it shows up on our radars (I.e. most of the time they do a good job).
This one, even if the story is 100% correct, is a tough situation to judge. I will assume this was not like some TV show, where there is a plenty of time for the LEO and the bad guy to have a little conversation, etc. My guess is the LEO enters, bad guy very quickly points gun at LEO with the innocent held between them, LEO reacts, etc. Let's assume, safely, that the LEO had no intention of shooting the innocent and no intention of getting in that situation in the first place. What is there to say? It's a terrible outcome. I'm not criticizing the LEO without knowing how it went down, in detail. Bad things happen, and the initiator of the evil here was not the LEO. That's what we know.
Having said that, if the policy of police is to put their lives in front of everyone else, go home safe, etc., then I would prefer they stay home. The suggestion somewhere above that this may be the view of police is not one I welcome. At minimum, they can do what any of us would do: protect themselves but not at the expense of other innocent life. If police do not see themselves as, primarily, defenders of innocent life (as opposed to primarily defenders of themselves) then they should find other work.
Finally, it is interesting to imagine a concealed carrying commoner in the place of the LEO in this story. Would the police be so quick to defend him? Would the media call it a tragedy but not assign blame? Or would we see the police, the government in general, and the media all come down on that concealed carry shooter for killing the innocent, with the suggestion that "this is just the sort of thing that happens when non-professionals engage bad guys." Would concealed carry holders all over America be disparaged, criticized, mocked, and have their rights attacked? We know the answers. The police live by a different standard.
Having said that, if the policy of police is to put their lives in front of everyone else, go home safe, etc., then I would prefer they stay home. The suggestion somewhere above that this may be the view of police is not one I welcome. At minimum, they can do what any of us would do: protect themselves but not at the expense of other innocent life. If police do not see themselves as, primarily, defenders of innocent life (as opposed to primarily defenders of themselves) then they should find other work.
Finally, it is interesting to imagine a concealed carrying commoner in the place of the LEO in this story. Would the police be so quick to defend him? Would the media call it a tragedy but not assign blame? Or would we see the police, the government in general, and the media all come down on that concealed carry shooter for killing the innocent, with the suggestion that "this is just the sort of thing that happens when non-professionals engage bad guys." Would concealed carry holders all over America be disparaged, criticized, mocked, and have their rights attacked? We know the answers. The police live by a different standard.
You make a very good point. A civilian using their legally concealed weapon would be in deep dookie if they messed up and killed the hostage by accident. The media would harp on it for weeks, making bullshit arguments for why only "trained professionals" should have guns.
So you think it was OK that he killed her to save himself?
Couple of thoughts:
1) my deepest sympathy to the girls family
2) once again habitual offenders out on parole creating chaos
3) people who think the cop should have pulled a Robocop and shot between the girls legs and hit the perp in the jimmy Johnson need to stop.
4) I see a huge lawsuit against police from girls family
1) my deepest sympathy to the girls family
2) once again habitual offenders out on parole creating chaos
3) people who think the cop should have pulled a Robocop and shot between the girls legs and hit the perp in the jimmy Johnson need to stop.
4) I see a huge lawsuit against police from girls family
I think many of you are forgetting Warren v District of Columbia where the SCOTUS ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individual citizens. There have been other cases as well. By killing the perp the officer was protecting society as a whole. He had no obligation legally to protect the victim. You can piss and moan about this forever but that is the system we have.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I, for one, am not disputing the legality of it. I'm saying that's not how I think it SHOULD be. When they stop paying them with my tax dollars, I'll stop pissing and moaning about it.
No one argued against it's lawfulness that I could see. And, if there was someone, I am not. Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
The police have a duty to enforce the law, too, correct? So tell me what your opinions are regarding the stupid ass gun laws we live under in MA, NJ, CT, etc? Just because they enforce the law...does it mean you can't speak out about how it is not right?
Last edited:
This is the problem I see.
There are insufficient details for me to form an opinion about whether the officer's action was right or wrong.
However, based on the limited facts, I don't see how he could be charged criminally; it was in the performance of his duty so he is not personally liable to the family - even the governmental entity he works for has only "limited liability"; maybe he could get some administrative punishment but it is doubtful.
A citizen with a license to carry would almost definitely be charged and probably convicted. He would also be personally liable for "wrongful death" to the family and almost certainly lose. Regardless of ultimate criminal conviction or civil liability his life would be ruined.
The problem I have is that when there are different laws and rules for the citizenry to follow vs that of Government agents it is difficult to pretend we are still a "Government of Laws and Not of Men" and that we still live in a Nation of Free People.
Then, like I said, he needs to find a new job, in my opinion.
Im saying that it was ok for him to try and save his own life. Its never ok when an innocent gets hit,but the fact an innocent is present does not mean you give up the right of self defense. Saying he killed her in order to save himself is implying he shot her on purpose,which if thats what your saying, then I think you are off base. I guess we just have differnt opinions. Lets pray neither of us ever find ourselves in this spot.
He did kill her to save his own life. He took a shot that obviously ran a high risk of killing her.
Again, in my opinion, if he can't do his job without killing citizens, he shouldn't have his job.
Any shot near a hostage has a high risk of killing the hostage. Hostages and People in general do not stay still when in high stress situations. HIndsight is 20/20. Until you have actually been in a situation involving gunplay you will never know how you will truely act or what you will do.
Who cares what I'll do? I'm not a cop. If you can't be a cop without killing civilians, you shouldn't be a cop.
It's hard to say he shouldn't be a cop without knowing exactly what the situation was. If the cop was backed into a corner and had a gun pointed at him then it was pretty much the same "him and maybe her, or me" situation all of us talk about being in and most of us say we will pick "me". That is just talking about the direct situation.... of course you could argue what I just said by saying "well he shouldn't have entered without backup" or "if he was cornered, that wasn't a good tactical move as a trained cop and he forced himself into a position to have to risk an innocent life".....then technically yes you are right and he shouldn't be a cop....tons of variables here.
lets be honest... judicious marksmanship is in order when a hostage is involved or else don't engage... to fire off 8 shots at a suspect w/hostage, that is the cop saving his own ass and not worrying about the consequences... What would happen to one of us who shoots at an attacker (self defense) and hits an innocent civilian? Don't respond... we all know the answer.
- Status
Similar threads
