Boghog1
NES Member
so the life of the perp(Smith) is equal to the life of the victim (Rebello)?
-
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 the life of the perp(Smith) is equal to the life of the victim (Rebello)?
n1oty
NES Member
This. I'm all for giving someone a chance or two at turning their life around, but when does society say enough is enough??? The shoot or no-shoot decision is strictly a no win situation for any police officer in cases such as this. The real blood is on the hands of the prosecutors, lawyers and judges who let this piece of shit continuously walk out of the "halls of justice" back onto the street.
Explain to me how this is, in any remote way, similar to the actual situation where police, who's job it is to protect and serve knowingly respond to a kidnapping/hostage in progress.
Oh wait, it's not.
That's just nutty. Police aren't cannon fodder for your warped sense of noblesse oblige. They are there to enforce the law, and in this case -according to the story which is all we have to go on- the officer acted in self defense. Someone pointed a gun at him and he had the right to defend himself. It is unfortunate that the hostage was killed, but the cop isn't the bad actor. The cop didn't instigate the action nor the confrontation nor the escalation.
Right.
Soooo, there you are just a walkin' down the street going doo waa diddy.... and suddenly a guy comes out of a bank with a girl in a headlock and aims a gun at you. You take the bullet, do you, so that she has a better chance at living?
Here's your Superman cape.
And here's your sign.
I'm not a cop.
cmacclel
NES Member
Definitely tragic........I feel for both parties.
What I don't understand is why would the police go into the house when they knew it was a hostage situation. I doubt this was standard protocol.
What I don't understand is why would the police go into the house when they knew it was a hostage situation. I doubt this was standard protocol.
It probably wasn't a hostage situation when they entered.
cmacclel
NES Member
How can you say that? One of the girls was *TOLD* by the armed bad guy to go to ATM for money and if she wasn't back in 8 minutes he was killing one of her friends. It was a hostage situation from the start without a doubt. In my opinion professionals in hostage scenarios should have been called in before any single police officer entered the house. The police where called by the girl who was sent to the ATM so they should have known it was a "Hostage Situation" from the start. The police never should have entered the house without 100% assessing the situation.
Last edited:
I guess I can't say that. Comment withdrawn.
The Tykes and martlets of the world need to get off their high horse and take off their 20/20 hindsight goggles. Who implied it is ok to "pop" someone in the head? Do you truly feel that was the officer's intention?
Brilliant logic my friend. Does a single failure indicate complete inability to decently perform a job across the board? No. Take our military in combat. Do you think innocent civilians have ever been killed before, even accidentally? Should every solider who fired or general who ordered an attack, acting honestly and with proper intentions in a situation where they must PROTECT THEMSELVES or other innocents, be forced to resign? Should they be discharged?
You know what else? YOU don't know a damn about the actual encounter either, but you are pretty quick to share with everyone how you'd have handled it, which, unlucky for you, would result in you no longer breathing. Whether you're a cop or not, you carry and remain prepared for a situation like this. I wouldn't envy your testicular fortitude to choose not to protect yourself when I am reading your obit...
How does it go, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6?
RIP to the girl.
joeendris
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,144
- Likes
- 789
Not really. It'll be justified, same way the cop in Framingham was protected from being held accountable.
Family Of Retired ?T? Worker Killed In Raid Wants Answers « CBS Boston
Yes, when that single failure results in you killing someone you're sworn to protect and serve.
Yes, if the civilian they kill is a US citizen they've sworn to protect and serve. It's quite the stretch to compare a soldier in combat to a cop, though. I'm sure you realized that.
Quiet
Banned
As I said, some of you have a really warped sense of what a cop is all about, some sort of idea that he's required to willingly sacrifice his life by throwing his body into oncoming fire as if he was a Secret Service agent defending the President.
When the perp pointed his gun at the cop, it was the perp who created the bad situation. The loss of the hostage's life is the direct result of the perp. The cop has a right to defend himself just as you would in any scenario. That's the point of the example of someone coming out of the bank with a hostage. If it was you, or if it was the cop it just doesn't matter. Someone points a gun at you, you have the right to defend yourself.
The difference for the cop is he ran INTO the house putting his life at risk in order to TRY to do good. But he's not Superman. When the situation unfolded that required him to defend himself he wasn't perfect.
I'm sorry that your signs are so heavy that you can't think clearly, and I hope you're never in such a situation for everyone's sake. I've seen the way most of you take out those evil paper targets in rapid fire.
THANK GOD
Yeah. It would really suck having a cop that wouldn't abuse your civil liberties, freedoms, or kill you to save himself.
Oh, the horror.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Where do we sign up for this.
If he ran in there to do good, he would be willingly to sacrifice his life for the person he supposedly went in there to save.
I would say he went in there to be a cowboy and get the bad guy, innocents be damned.
How many deaths would be justified to catch the suspect? Obviously you think more than one. Would it be OK if he were holding two five year olds hostage and the cop shot both of them dead, but got the perp?
Your "logic" of "doing good" is exactly what has made this world so ****ed up to live in.
no one said suicide. when push comes to shove you must uphold said oath or you're not cut out for being 5-0. that's the way it is.
FTFY.
cmacclel
NES Member
GunGrey
Banned
The cop ran in to confront the bad guy and enforce the law
he didnt run into to save the female victim because police no longer serve and protect, they enforce laws.
as for quiet's example about the bank. what's more important the money he stole or the girl?
he didnt run into to save the female victim because police no longer serve and protect, they enforce laws.
as for quiet's example about the bank. what's more important the money he stole or the girl?
Mistakes happen, and if that is all this is -- the tragic outcome of a best effort to protect innocent life -- then that is just the way it is. I wouldn't blame the LEO any more or less than I would blame anyone in that situation (a key thing in a world where we all know a non-LEO would receive far more scrutiny and blame).
But, some of you want to go further. You want this to be an outcome that is inherently justifiable merely because the LEO was defending his life. That is too much. Nobody should necessarily be free to kill innocents to save themselves. It can happen. It can be justifiable depending on the situation. But what it cannot be is always and everywhere acceptable, a component of policy or training, or some other absolute. Being on the receiving end of a life-threatening force is not a blank check to do anything at all when innocent life is involved -- not for police and not for anyone. So enough with the ex-post rationalization and defense of the blue line. This is what a number of posters here are responding to -- the extreme defense of killing an innocent apart from the details of the situation.
If one knowingly walks into a deadly situation then one must accept some risk. I don't want anyone coming to save me if their rules of engagement are "**** the innocents" the moment they feel threatened. As an innocent, that is more trouble than I need, and certainly far from helpful in a variety of situations. I would never ask anyone to save my life, to lay down their own, or to be a hero on my behalf. Nobody owes me that, and even if they did I wouldn't ask for it. What I am completely comfortable requesting is do-no-harm. This girl's odds of survival went from unknown to zero because help arrived. As noted above, that may be the tragic result of the best effort the officer could bring. But it is absolutely not fine for anyone to assert that the outcome is acceptable in general.
But, some of you want to go further. You want this to be an outcome that is inherently justifiable merely because the LEO was defending his life. That is too much. Nobody should necessarily be free to kill innocents to save themselves. It can happen. It can be justifiable depending on the situation. But what it cannot be is always and everywhere acceptable, a component of policy or training, or some other absolute. Being on the receiving end of a life-threatening force is not a blank check to do anything at all when innocent life is involved -- not for police and not for anyone. So enough with the ex-post rationalization and defense of the blue line. This is what a number of posters here are responding to -- the extreme defense of killing an innocent apart from the details of the situation.
If one knowingly walks into a deadly situation then one must accept some risk. I don't want anyone coming to save me if their rules of engagement are "**** the innocents" the moment they feel threatened. As an innocent, that is more trouble than I need, and certainly far from helpful in a variety of situations. I would never ask anyone to save my life, to lay down their own, or to be a hero on my behalf. Nobody owes me that, and even if they did I wouldn't ask for it. What I am completely comfortable requesting is do-no-harm. This girl's odds of survival went from unknown to zero because help arrived. As noted above, that may be the tragic result of the best effort the officer could bring. But it is absolutely not fine for anyone to assert that the outcome is acceptable in general.
- Status
Similar threads
